Defending Trump
Trump has announced his candidacy. He is yet again running for PotUS. He seeks the GoP nomination.
Most people recognize that Trump will likely lose in a general election. Thus if the GoP nominates Trump they will ipso facto place the D nominee in the oval office.
Hard to imagine that a GoP member would want that to occur. Yet for some unknown reason, many GoP members take actions that make that a possibility; they continue to excuse Trump's misdeeds and run interference for negative actions taken against Trump.
Trump can become the GoP nominee the same way he did it in 2016 — by achieving a plurality of the votes. That is not a high bar, especially given Trump's extant base of supporters.
So here is the question, given the GoP nomination is within real reach of Trump and given that Trump will almost certainly lose in the general election and deliver the presidency to the D nominee, why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?
Keep defending Trump and he will secure the plurality and become the GoP nominee.
He will then lose the general election and you will have accomplished what you fear most — putting a D back in the oval office.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [TᵢG]
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
Given the GoP nomination is within real reach of Trump and given that Trump will almost certainly lose in the general election and deliver the presidency to the D nominee, why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?
fear of being shunned. there's a lot of examples of what happens when somebody runs contrary to the maga cult.
Death wish.
Seems cultish to me. Not unusual for our species.
They spent 6+ years defending him. Old habits are hard to break.
they would rather circle the globe in the opposite direction rather than cross the street by admitting they made a mistake. deny, deny, deny, deflect. zero accountability and zero responsibility.
Here is a thought, he has no intention of running for office and will withdraw before the election, in the meantime, he will keep milking the MAGA suckers for money.
It was reported that he has signed licensing agreements with foreign governments, SA for one which will once again create a problem if he runs in the general election.
Trump will run, because his malignant narcissism demands it. He is mentally ill in that sense. As far as all his conflicts etc, he will try and tie them up in court until after the 24 election , and then if he wins he will blow them off.
Keep ignoring the rule of law and the Constitution; and the [deleted] Democrats will already have won.
It isn't Republicans keeping Trump front and center.
It is Brandon, Democrats, and the most partisan DOJ in history. They can't beat anyone else. They know it. They sycophants in the media know it. So do most of their TDS driven followers; though they will never admit- because to do so would mean having to admit they created Trump- and are keeping him alive.
"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!!"
Take a look at the damage the [deleted] Democrats have done to the country in just two years of running the show. Yet somehow people voted to keep them in power. Inflation; high gas prices; rampant crime; a wide open border with record numbers of illegal immigrants, drugs, and gang members coming across it; and a looming recession. None of that mattered. What did was the president of the US threatening to use the US military against those that disagreed with him- not once; but twice. The fear mongering Brandon generated in those two speeches was worthy of any tin horn dictator.
Democrats have weaponized the IRS, FBI, and DOJ against their opponents.
Go ahead and bring down Trump by any means necessary. Just remember once he is gone who is next? When is the point of no return going to be crossed? Who will it be that the Democrat machine comes for that the US people finally say "enough!". Will it even make a difference if the Democrats get their way an nationalize elections (violating the Constitution; grant amnesty to illegals (not because they care for them; but because they need their votes to stay in power); do away with the Electoral College; pack the Supreme Court; and end the filibuster).
"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!!"
Pathetic as always. "Keep all eyes on Trump! Watch Trump! Trump and his followers are out to ruin America!"
[deleted] Democrats are counting on continued voter stupidity.
the collective dreck of your entire comment is an excellent example...
Well that's total bullshit. The Republican party has continued to kneel before their naked Emperor which is why there were hundreds of Trump backed candidates in the mid-term. Did they largely get rejected by independents? Yes, but there wouldn't have been hundreds of Republican candidates begging for Trumps endorsement if there weren't millions of Republican voters still enamored by the Mango Mussolini.
More bullshit without a lick of truth to it, just pure partisan fantasy.
The rest of your comment is just more of the same along with some added insane conspiracy theories and is not even worth responding to, just lies coated with bullshit inserted in Qanon conspiracy theories, like a 'Turduckin' of flawed conservative fantasy.
That's absolutely all some here have.
Except it completely isn't.
Or have you already forgotten about this Jan 6 committee?
Do you really believe that Trumps loyal base of voters and his decision to announce another run for President was affected by the January 6th committee? Seriously?
If Democrats never mentioned Trump again, he would still hold massive sway over the Republican party regardless of whether you're a Republican who has finally ditched Trump. Trumps actions are what is keeping him "front and center". His choice to lie about the 2020 election. His choice to incite an attempted insurrection and get his loyalists to stop the peaceful transfer of power and install him as 'Leader' of America. His choice to take classified documents then refuse to return them and lie about them to the archives.
So yes, claiming Democrats are responsible for Trump is total bullshit. Trump and his obsequies ass kissing Republicans and their rightwing white Christian conservative fascist base are the only ones to blame.
“So yes, claiming Democrats are responsible for Trump is total bullshit.”
After all, who is the only announced candidate for the 2024 election?
The loyalty of his core voters has definitely been increased by the Jan 6 hearings, just like the Lewinsky hearings galvanized Clinton's faithful supporters.
The math disagrees with you. DeSantis has gained 12 points on him in the polls since election day.
I need to remind you that DeSantis is not actually in the race. So Trump is losing significant ground to a person who is..... wait for it........ not. running. for. president.
Riiiiight. It must have been Trump who scheduled all those primetime televised hearings.
I'm sure you think so. You have a pretty well-documented history of getting defensive anytime anybody suggests a Democrat has done something wrong, so it's certainly no surprise that you'd repeat that pattern here.
But I bet you watched those hearings. I bet you saw allllll those Democrats on TV talking about Trump without him even in the room.
Yes yes that is all you have?
Bullshit. They just had another chance to voice their support and whine about bullshit conspiracy theories they have exactly zero evidence of, from election fraud to some fantasy liberal 'deep state' that has it out for their 'Dear Leader'.
I never said Trump didn't lose any support, I'm saying his loyal, roughly, 47% of the Republican party continue to support him while only 46% oppose him running for a second term. That is a majority of the Republican party, even though slim. Claiming Democrats should just ignore the guy who has the support of a majority of the Republican party is frankly insane.
Trump's Republican Support Plummets by 20 Points, New Poll Shows (newsweek.com)
You can define a candidate that has gone from 99% support to 98% support as "losing ground", should that make their opponents relieved to the point they should ignore the candidate with majority support?
More bullshit. Please do list those posts of mine that claim Democrats can do no wrong. I have been clear about my votes pre-Bush Jr., I did not vote for Clinton in '92 or '96. I have not been a lifelong Democrat. I believe in strong borders, but also that we should treat undocumented immigrants as humans and not a virus. I believe in a strong US military to defend ourselves from the global threats of the 21st century and into the future. I believe in the 2nd amendment but agree with former Justice Scalia that those rights are not "unlimited" and should have sensible laws and an emphasis on gun safety.
Do I get frustrated by some of the loony far left Democrats who talk about fringe ideas like amnesty for all undocumented immigrants or support those who turned peaceful protests into riots or felt they were justified in committing violence, vandalism and looting? Of course, those aren't the liberals, progressives and Democrats I know, they are a fringe edge of the party. Those who actually believe that shit are an extreme minority of the Democrat party unlike the majority of the Republican party who continue to believe in a blatant lie of election fraud and ridiculous Qanon conspiracy theories.
Most Republicans still falsely believe Trump’s stolen election claims. Here are some reasons why. - Poynter
Majority Of Republicans Believe The QAnon Conspiracy Theory Is Partly Or Mostly True, Survey Finds (forbes.com)
Yes, I did. Does that mean any of the facts presented along with what I saw with my own eyes on January 6th and the overwhelming evidence presented was fake?
What the fuck does having Trump in the room or not have to do with whether the facts presented, the texts, the video, the criminally delayed response from the President after his staff was literally begging for him to call off the insurrection, have to do with the actual facts presented? Also, there were Republicans there presenting much of that evidence. Should having him there pleading the fifth hundreds of times somehow proven him innocent of what we all saw with our own eyes? Really? Only those who have their heads stuffed up that tangerine tyrant's ass are pardoning him of his fucking insanity and attempted insurrection.
If the January 6th insurrection had been successful, if they had blocked the certification and installed Trump as President, is that what it would have taken for the Republican party to wake up and scream "No! That's not how our country was founded, That is against our constitution and our nations founding's! We will never support such an illegal takeover of the American government!". Of course not, all the fucking spineless wastes of space would be inventing all sorts of defenses for the 'New Trumpublican Regime' they helped into power by either directly supporting or at a minimum turning a blind eye.
This is not a 'But Trump ...' article in any stretch of the imagination so your comment is nothing but emotive nonsense. I suggest you tone down your emotions and turn up the volume on critical thinking.
Do you think it is wise for GoP members to defend Trump and, in so doing, enable him to secure the GoP nomination?
That's not as simple a question as you like to make it seem.
There are an idiotic number of ridiculous and unfounded accusations directed at Trump. Is it wise to identify them as such? Yes, because the precedent of hive-mind acceptance of stupid accusations is incredibly dangerous to any free society.
Is that usually attacked as "defending Trump"? Also yes.
It is no small problem in general that 6+ years of continual accusations have rendered them meaningless and destroyed the accusers' credibility. You simply can't cry wolf that often for that long and expect anybody to still believe you.
Sure it is. I am talking the Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI documents. This article (and this should be obvious) is not focused on the myriad trivial political accusations against Trump such as the prostitute-pee rumor.
I chose not to spell out the most glaring, big issues problems with Trump since I figured this would be obvious by now. So this is what I am talking about people defending:
Trump is a former PotUS who tried to steal a US election:
Trump also violated the PRA and held TS/SCI documents at his home (obviously compromising national security) and, apparently, resisted full cooperation with the National Archives to ensure their safe return.
"Collusion". "Attempted blackmail" of Ukraine. "Racism". I'm not sure I'd consider those "trivial".
Why would those be the "most glaring"? He was literally impeached for items not on your list.
That's the point, BTW. The ubiquitous din of accusation renders them all less meaningful.
Again, I am talking about the Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI documents. Would you defend Trump's actions in the Big Lie campaign or his taking of TS/SCI documents (compromising national security) and not fully cooperating immediately on their safe return?
Seriously Jack? They are the last major wrongdoings of Trump as PotUS. They are both profound and distinctive in history. No former PotUS has violated the PRA and certainly none have failed to cooperate to secure national security (especially with TS/SCI documents). And no PotUS (or even candidate) has ever attempted to steal a US presidential election ... and none (even Nixon) have come close to what Trump attempted in the Big Lie.
Do you think it is good for the GoP to have people run interference for Trump as you are currently doing? The more people who seek to muddy / downplay Trump's wrongdoing, the more likely he is to be a real challenger for the nomination. Imagine nominating an individual for PotUS who attempted to steal the last election.
I have to disagree. Along with Jack's point, for many people it isn't all that much about Trump. It's where the Left is taking us that matters more. Think Gavin Newsom running on the Dem ticket. That scares the crap out of a lot of people on the right and some in the center. That is, it is hard to convince people to focus on the dog who tore up the cushions when the house is on fire. Especially when doing so would mean (to them) letting the guy who set the fire keep setting them.
The point of this article is that people defending Trump (in particular against his Big Lie campaign where he attempted to steal the 2020 election) and his taking of TS/SCI documents are enabling Trump to potentially secure the nomination.
This article is about the GoP nomination. So focus on that.
Do you want Trump to be the GoP nominee? He certainly has a chance to do that. Do you disagree that providing cover for Trump improves his chances for achieving plurality and taking the one spot the GoP has for PotUS in 2024?
I did. What you are attempting is to get everyone to ignore all else save how you want them to look at it. But really, all you're doing here is asking "do you really want this guy in office?" I'm telling you why it isn't that simple.
Honestly, I'm not sure I care anymore. I think the system is so corrupt that it won't matter much who is president. All it will be is the same useless partisanship fighting and cycle of revenge politics while the country deteriorates around us.
What?! This is (intentionally) a very brief article that poses a very obvious problem: Trump has a chance to secure the GoP nomination and those who defend his Big Lie and TS/SCI behavior are enabling him.
Yes, it is that simple unless you think that Trump is a good general election candidate for the GoP. Do you? Do you actually think Trump as the GoP nominee is a strong move? If you want to counteract the D party, you would want a strong GoP candidate, right?
So tell me, do you think Trump could win a general election ... do you think that he is anything even close to the GoP's best general election candidate? If so, please explain this to me.
I think you have conclusive proof on this seed that conservatives dont give a fuck if Trump is a traitor.
10 years ago such a thing would be unthinkable (giving a pass to a president who tried to steal a presidential election). Right wing media has ruined a lot of these peoples ability to think straight.
Not to toot my own horn too much, but I have been predicting all this for years.
The larger (non trumpster) society in America is a little complicit for not paying attention to these trends until the last 2 years (post jan 6).
It is not only possible that Trump will be the 2024 GOP nominee, one could fairly easily make the case that he is the likely nominee. Yet is is virtually impossible to find a conservative (outside of the already never Trumpers) who will now say that Trump is unfit for office and disqualified from serving. It is absolutely amazing.
Some I suppose do not. Note also, John, that a number simply like to be contrary ... just like to argue for the sake of argument.
I know, incredible. And worse, Trump has lowered the bar for all politicians. Now it is not so outrageous to call an election "rigged".
The Big Lie campaign is a major milestone. Much of modern politics is so slimy and divisive, I think many (most?) people tune out or simply relegate it to ' just politics '. What Trump did in his Big Lie campaign was distinctive and profound — never in our history has a sitting PotUS tried to steal a US presidential election. It is unheard of. It is one thing to ignore investigations of prostitute pee but this outrageous act by a sitting PotUS should easily convince everyone that Trump should never hold a public office ... much less PotUS.
I have different words for that.
I know this is an argument, but it was known before the 2016 election that Trump was a proven liar, crook, bigot moron and cheat. The mainstream media failed the country in 2016 by making the election a "horse race" and creating the pretense that Trump was fit for office. He has never been fit.
Honestly, I don't know. I think the midterms may have changed more than a few minds about Trump but I don't know to what extent. So, would DeSantis fit the bill as a "strong GoP candidate?"
The problem is that Trump was not so different from the average politician in terms of integrity. The US electorate has a rather sour view of our elected officials (justifiably).
Trump's Big Lie campaign ... his attempt to steal the election ... is profoundly distinctive. He no longer is one of many, he stands alone with glaring lights. There is no excuse for considering him as a candidate for PotUS.
Drakk, you are blowing my mind. I assume you are not simply arguing to be obnoxious and actually are being honest. With that assumption, I cannot imagine how you could not be 100% convinced that Trump should never hold the office of PotUS. He should not even be a consideration ... for cause.
As for DeSantis, I think he is the strongest current GoP candidate. He is, IMO, the most likely individual to challenge Trump for the nomination.
Thus, if the GoP were thinking (which seems to not be the case), the GoP would be rallying around DeSantis and pushing Trump aside.
I dont think that is true, although I would admit that many people didnt know the extent of Trumps ethical lapses.
Before 2026 election it was known that Trump had partaken in the scam known as Trump University. This should have disqualified him. It was known that he had lent his name to ponzi schemes. It was known that he used bankruptcy to enrich himself and cheat his casino investors. It was known that Trump had promoted the racist lie of "birtherism". In and of itself this should have disqualified Trump for the presidency in peoples minds. Before 2016 it was known that the Trump condo business had lied about sales of units in condo projects in order to attract additional buyers. There is a lot more but I will leave it at that for here and now.
None of that compares to a sitting PotUS attempting to steal a US presidential election — especially to the level that Trump took it.
I suppose so, but he was never fit for office, not for one minute, and it should have been part of the coverage of his candidacy in 2016 in the mainstream media, and it wasnt.
Then you would be correct. There is a lot about my view I'm not explaining as I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion.
Yeah, and I feel pretty much the same way about most of our Federal government. Biden, in my opinion, should be impeached simply for dereliction of duty at the border all by itself, let alone other things he's done. Then, a sitting President gave the Red speech, choreographed as if were made in the Soviet Union and pretty much called half of America traitors and threats to democracy. You get that, don't you? A sitting President of the United States threw the full authority of the office behind calling Americans traitors because they weren't part of his ideology.
So, yeah, in a better America, Trump would be an easy decision on personality alone. But that isn't the America we have.
LOL, not sure how this could become a religious discussion.
I very much hope that Biden will not run.
But right now, this article focuses on what the GoP is going to do with its Trump problem. The GoP cannot control what the Ds do but they certainly can clean up their own house.
So no matter who is running for PotUS on the D side, it is bad for the GoP for Trump to have the possibility of securing the nomination.
Surely you agree with that.
Stated differently, and personally, if Biden runs for reelection I want an alternative to vote for.
What in the world are you talking about? After MSM outlets like Morning Joe pushed his candidacy during the primaries, the media was 100% anti- Trump once he clinched the nomination. It's impossible to imagine a press posture that was more anti-trump without straight out broadcasting Democratic party commercials "as news."
It's amazing to me that the media field is so obviously overwhelmingly tilted in favor of Democrats and yet they still whine and demand even more meddling on their behalf. No wonder the idea of twitter not being a propaganda machine for them has spooked them so badly.
How many people do you actually think are defending those actions?
That didn't take long. The hive-mind is getting quicker.
Exactly two posts into the conversation and you're accusing me of defending Trump when all I've really done is point out that the issue is larger than you want to admit it is.
Real simple Jack. This article posits that Trump has a chance to secure the GoP nomination and that would be bad for the GoP.
If you agree that a Trump nomination would be bad for the GoP then the obvious course of action would be to work to see that someone else is nominated.
How does 'but look at all the unfair things they did to Trump during his presidency' (and equivalent) help to keep Trump from the nomination? It does not; it serves to support him. Arguments that effectively paint Trump as a victim have been taking place for years and serve to shore up Trump support.
The GoP needs to get out of that mode and simply detach from Trump. Stop making excuses for him. Stop diluting the significance of his attempt to steal the presidency by bringing in all sorts of other issues. Directly focus on pushing him aside so that someone else secures the nomination.
In short, the GoP should work to ensure that Trump —who tried to steal the presidential election— never secures the one and only GoP presidential nomination slot for 2024.
Do you have stats to offer? If so, let's see them.
Best I can tell, DeSantis is Trump's critical challenger. The GoP should be working to ensure DeSantis is their leader and pushing Trump aside. If DeSantis does not run, Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack. While anything can happen and it is very likely that Trump's popularity will continue to wane, Trump is still a very strong contender.
That should concern anyone who wants the GoP to have a chance to win the presidency in 2024.
And, in your opinion, whom does this pack consist of?
Pundits have been offering the potential candidates for a while now. Here is a source you might like:
DeSantis is the most likely to take the reins. Candidates like Pence have no prayer.
Yes, but I was asking for your opinion.
My opinion is based on the names that have been offered. I do not do original research on who might be a candidate. I do not know who might have sent subtle signals of intent.
I'm confused, do you think "Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack." or do you think "DeSantis is the most likely to take the reins"?
I see no reason for you to be confused.
I see, so in your opinion DeSantis is the challenger? And if he doesn't run Trump is the de facto nominee?
No, I have never stated that Trump is the de facto nominee. I stated that he is head and shoulders above the rest. That means he would be the clear front-runner with a large gap between him and second place.
The phrase 'de facto' is far too strong — especially at this early stage. The phrase 'most likely' would be more accurate.
DeSantis seems like the most likely challenger for Trump.
So now that I have repeatedly explained a very clear original statement, what is your opinion: who is the most likely challenger for Trump and who is next line?
By John Ziegler Aug 25th, 2019, 11:49 am
Of all of the astonishingly bad media behavior during Donald Trump’s shockingly easy run to the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, the most inexplicable was the utter lack of legitimate vetting of him by the mainstream news media. There were numerous incidents which, if it was any other Republican campaign in history, the news media would have certainly used to destroy his candidacy, but instead they mostly just noted before quickly moving on to the next shiny object.
While there are far too many examples of this phenomenon, a few deserve special mention.
One of my personal favorites is Trump blatantly lying to the Today show about a tape of him embarrassingly pretending to be his own publicist “John Barron.” Not only did Trump clearly lie about this, but it was a story that could be easily understood, had overwhelming and entertaining proof, and could have driven a dagger right into the heart of his entire phony “alpha male/super rich guy” narrative (super rich guys obviously don’t have to pretend to be their own publicist).
Related to this was that Trump’s very shaky status as a legitimate billionaire was also never fully focused on by the news media, which I attribute mostly to the extremely dangerous tendency in the press (one Trump fully understands) to blindly believe anything that the New York media universally accepts as true. It was somehow not until well after his election as president that we finally learned that Trump had lied to Forbes in order to get that gross misperception of his fake wealth cemented as the essence of who he is (part of this was because the mainstream media, especially NBC, had already benefited from creating the myth of Trump as super-rich celebrity for their own benefit, making it more difficult for them to admit that was all just a convenient ruse).
Then there was the complete lack of curiosity, an example of extreme malpractice, that the news media had in what was clearly the National Enquirer tabloid working as a literal arm of the Trump campaign. Of course, we only learned after Trump was elected that the National Enquirer was engaged in a likely criminal conspiracy with Trump to cover up his dirty laundry, meaning, most importantly, that Trump somehow took the oath of office knowing that the tabloid, whose tactics are much like that of a terrorist organization, had enormous leverage over him.
Similarly, we now know, in what is maybe the most mind-blowing fact of the 2016 election that, even after winning the GOP nomination Trump was actively trying to make a deal with the Russian government to build a massive Trump Tower in Moscow. We also know that he lied about it numerous times (with his personal lawyer later committing perjury on the topic while testifying to Congress). While it would have taken some great journalism to find this out at the time, given Trump’s very strange penchant for praising Vladimir Putin , and his long history of wanting to do business in Russia, for a vibrant fourth estate it would have hardly been impossible.
And yet, largely due to news media incompetence, the vast majority of Americans never knew any of these topics were even serious issues and, amazingly, still don’t to this day.
There are a lot of possible reasons for why the media failed so spectacularly here, with not wanting Trump out of the race for both economic and political agenda purposes near the top of the list. But a more innocent explanation deals with the treacherously tiny attention span of the modern media consumer and, consequently, also that of the outlets providing those customers the news.
In a sense, the mainstream news media was like a fisherman in a sea with such an embarrassment of angling options that no matter what Trump story they caught, they quickly threw it away, convinced that the really big one would be hooked at any moment. This clearly worked to Trump’s advantage in multiple ways.
One of them was that, because we now live in such a fragmented media environment that it’s not what is “reported,” but rather what gets “repeated” that carries the day, many stories the general public had no clue about where incorrectly deemed “old news” for the general election. But a much more significant factor was that the news media felt no urgency to change where the contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared to be heading.
Based on all the polling, the mainstream media was going to get what was for them the best of all worlds. An entertaining and close-enough-to-create-drama general election that ends with the safer and more liberal alternative winning.
They could even pretend to be honest and fair arbiters by creating a false equivalence between Hillary’s email problems, a story they never let die, and everything else Trump was doing which should have made him utterly unqualified for the job. After all, everyone knew that there was no real danger of Trump actually winning.
Then, a month before the election, the big fish the media had been waiting for suddenly landed in the form of the now infamous “Access Hollywood Tape.” But much like Ernest Hemingway’s iconic character in Old Man and the Sea , by the time they got the big whopper to shore, there was almost nothing left.
The media’s hysteria over the “pussy” tape was well-founded, but all-too-typically misguided. Being liberals who see everything through their lens of political correctness, they focused on the theoretical “sexual assault” aspect of the recording, rather on his out-of-touch “when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything” comments, which may have had more of an impact among his blue-collar voting base (maybe more importantly, it also pushed the emerging story of Russia’s influence on behalf of Trump totally out of the news cycle).
What the news media understandably thought was their knockout punch for Trump ended up barely leaving a mark. This was, in part, a consequence of many years of the news media squandering the public’s trust (especially among Republicans) and their loss of their monopoly over the political narrative.
That isnt even the half of it.
Trump isn't the cause of MAGA sentiment, he's the result of it...
Most egregiously, the media did not subject Trump's record to the kind of scrutiny other major candidates should receive.
The very fact Trump had never held elective office or even formally run for one previously meant the political press did not have great muscle knowledge in how to approach him. But surely his business ventures, his entertainment career and his life in the gossip columns should have suggested something beyond a smirk.
Scores of lawsuits have been filed against Trump and his enterprises. His corporations have declared bankruptcy four times. His stated worth of $10 billion has been credibly challenged — for years. He has pressed the levers of power in city halls, state capitols and Washington, D.C., to gain financial advantage for decades. Surely these all deserve tough dissection.
Yet we knew far more, and far earlier, about more modest controversies involving the other candidates, such as Bush's financial ties to the Common Core curriculum. Or Rubio's personal finances . Look at those dates: January and June 2015. These stories deserve coverage. But so did Trump's activities, even if they required a form of reporting unfamiliar to the political press corps.
You can rightly point to some strong exceptions: For example, the Washington Post on Trump University last summer; Bloomberg in February on his international holdings . But these can't be one-and-done stories. Readers and viewers are being swamped with information and content — and occasionally real journalism — and such useful reports often sweep past us.
As an institution, the news media (much like government itself) are held in very low regard; one can reasonably argue that reporters won't be trusted no matter how vigorously they dissect Trump's record and life.
But that fact shouldn't allow the profession to abdicate its actual mission.
The press had an obligation to surround its unfiltered and sometimes fond treatment of Trump as a celebrity and controversialist with tough-minded scrutiny. That turned out to be the exception rather than the rule.
Why do you think that was?
www.theatlantic.com /ideas/archive/2020/09/media-mistakes/616222/
The Media Learned Nothing From 2016
James Fallows 22-28 minutes 9/15/2020
The press hasn’t broken its most destructive habits when it comes to covering Donald Trump.
....Also in pursuit of the ritual of balance, the networks offset coverage of Donald Trump’s ethical liabilities and character defects, which would have proved disqualifying in any other candidate for nearly any other job, with intense investigation of what they insisted were Hillary Clinton’s serious email problems. Six weeks before the election, Gallup published a prophetic analysis showing what Americans had heard about each candidate. For Trump, the words people most recognized from all the coverage were speech , immigration , and Mexico . For Clinton, one word dwarfed all others: EMAIL . The next two on the list, much less recognized, were lie and Foundation . (The Clinton Foundation, set up by Bill Clinton, was the object of sustained scrutiny for supposedly shady dealings that amount to an average fortnight’s revelations for the Trump empire.) One week before the election, The New York Times devoted the entire top half of its front page to stories about FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of an investigation into the emails. “New Emails Jolt Clinton Campaign in Race’s Last Days” was the headline on the front page’s lead story. “With 11 Days to Go, Trump Says Revelation ‘Changes Everything,’” read another front-page headline .
Just last week came a fresh reminder of the egregiousness of that coverage, often shorthanded as “But her emails!” On Wednesday, September 9, Bob Woodward’s tapes of Trump saying that when it came to the coronavirus, he “wanted to always play it down” came out, along with a whistleblower’s claim that the Department of Homeland Security was falsifying intelligence to downplay the risk of Russian election interference and violence from white supremacists. On the merits, either of those stories was far more important than Comey’s short-lived inquiry into what was always an overhyped scandal. But in this election season, each got a demure one-column headline on the Times ’ front page . The Washington Post , by contrast, gave Woodward’s revelations banner treatment across its front page.
Who knows how the 2016 race might have turned out, and whether a man like Trump could have ended up in the position he did, if any of a hundred factors had gone a different way. But one important factor was the press’s reluctance to recognize what it was dealing with: a person nakedly using racial resentment as a tool; whose dishonesty and corruption dwarfed that of both Clintons combined, with most previous presidents’ thrown in as well ; and whose knowledge about the vast organization he was about to control was inferior to that of any Capitol Hill staffer and most immigrants who had passed the (highly demanding) U.S. citizenship test .
Which they are already doing.
The point here, TiG, is that the ceaseless barrage of accusations becomes a meaningless cacophony. They cannot cry wolf continually for 6 years and expect people to believe them, much less to still give a shit.
They appear to be much closer to letting go of Trump than Democrats do.
Who is making excuses for him?
It really seems like "lack of any charges" is the most dilutive force there. Surely if the Democrat in the WH and the Democrat led DOJ thought this was all that serious they'd have managed to produce something by now.
I'm fascinated by that, TBF. How do you actually investigate that man for as many years as they have and not manage to find an actual crime? It seems more difficult than running through while missing every raindrop.
Since you're the one calling it a problem, I assumed you had them.
Or.... maybe.... since it's a democracy and all.... they should let voters decide. The voters might prefer Youngkin. Or Abbott. Or Noem. Or Joe Manchin might switch parties. No telling what might happen.
There is no "pack" yet. It's too early for that. Most of the potential candidates haven't been sworn in for the elections they just won.
Why would that be inexplicable? When is the last time they vetted anything?
Some are supporting candidates like DeSantis while defending Trump. This article suggests that everyone cease running interference for Trump and focus on positive support for their future. Make a full choice; break free. Ensure Trump has no chance of securing the GoP nomination.
Of course, but that is not the point of this article — not in any way, nor does the article even hint that this barrage has not occurred. The point of this article is that the GoP needs to stop running interference for Trump and especially on his most obvious, recent actions: Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI documents.
This article argues that the GoP stop propping up Trump and instead rally support around a different candidate for PotUS.
One can only hope so. Trump's support is clearly waning since the midterms. Hopefully that is a trend that will continue. In which case, the problem will likely solve itself. In the meantime, stop running interference for Trump. Detach. Focus on the future.
Jack, anytime someone makes comments like " the Jan 6th committee is a pure partisan circus " or " so where are the indictments? " they are providing cover for Trump. They are implicitly persuading less aware voters to dismiss all the information presented by the committee. When someone argues that Trump has not been found guilty (or even indicted) per the Big Lie campaign or the PRA TS/SCI documents they are encouraging susceptible people to view Trump as a victim. " It's all a big conspiracy. Trump really did not do anything nearly as bad as it looks ... "
It is in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump cover. Forget Trump and focus GoP political attention on candidates that the GoP wishes to promote. Every defense of Trump simply add to keeping his candidacy relevant. It is counter-productive; it is damaging to the GoP and to the nation.
See, here you go again. What is the value of placing/increasing doubt in susceptible minds? You know personally that Trump was wrong in his Big Lie campaign (for example) and caused harm to the USA. You know that Trump, if elected to PotUS, would do harm to the GoP and to the nation. You personally do not want Trump to be the nominee. So why do you continue to feed the victim narratives and the conspiracy theories? To what end?
And, of course, the problem is not you or anyone on NT. This is an irrelevant microcosm. The problem is that this behavior is far too common in the GoP at large.
Instead of giving Trump cover, the GoP should rally support around other candidates and diminish Trump's relevance so that he hopefully drops out.
There are other methods of identifying problems prior to having a mathematical model.
DeSantis was an example because he is the most obvious leader. Looks like you are just arguing irrelevant points for the sake of argument.
Yeah, resorting to this level of nit-picking shows that you are just arguing to argue.
So when are we going to prosecute Clinton for doing that same thing. You all keep saying it was no big deal when she kept them on an unsecured server.
Trump stands head and shoulders over any docrat I can think of especially the dolt we have now.
This article is about the GoP nominating Trump. It is about the GoP doing a disservice to itself. Do you have a comment that is topical?
Truth hurts doesn't it,?
You wouldn't know.
be sure and let us know when any of your comments contain some...
What I want to know really is why are Democrats throwing such a tantrum over his existence as a candidate if most people realize he would lose in a general election? I think they believe he will win, thus the Jan 6th committee and now a special counsel, all of which if history repeats will help him. The electorate hates government run investigations into candidates.
Let's just say the attempt to keep him off a ballot (even though we all know he can't win right?) succeeds. They run Desantis who is vastly more popular than anyone Democrats have in the bullpen. Sounds like a mistake in my opinion. The best course of action would be to abandon the hysterical fixation with Donald Trump and treat him like any other candidate. Remember our media has lower approval ratings than any of them and for good reason.
What if Democrat's ran a normal candidate who could actually articulate a intelligent plan taking America forward. That would dispose of Donald.
Possibly. Or possibly you're back to using the hive-mind definition of "defend Trump".
What measurable outcome are you looking for?
The article is part of the barrage.
This is akin to arguing about a baseball team starting the wrong pitcher in a game that isn't scheduled until next May.
So.... hive mind definitions it is.
Understand that refusal to endorse one brand of bullshit does not constitute a defacto endorsement of another.
You yourself have admitted repeatedly that the committee was partisan and had zero power to actually do anything.
"Where are the indictments" is a perfectly valid question that any impartial person should want to know. We are a nation of laws. If laws have been broken, we have a process for that. No matter how despicable you may find a person, they are entitled to that process.
If you mistake defending the right of any American citizen to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as defense of Trump, you become a bigger problem than he ever was.
And this bullshit about "less aware voters" and "susceptible people"? Go ahead and check "liberal condescension" off your hive requirements list.
It is in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump attention. Which is why Democrats keep doing it.
I'll take that as your concession.
Trump not achieving the plurality of votes to secure the GoP nomination. As I noted in the body of my article.
This article in its entirety:
Trump has announced his candidacy. He is yet again running for PotUS. He seeks the GoP nomination.
Most people recognize that Trump will likely lose in a general election. Thus if the GoP nominates Trump they will ipso facto place the D nominee in the oval office.
Hard to imagine that a GoP member would want that to occur. Yet for some unknown reason, many GoP members take actions that make that a possibility; they continue to excuse Trump's misdeeds and run interference for negative actions taken against Trump.
Trump can become the GoP nominee the same way he did it in 2016 — by achieving a plurality of the votes. That is not a high bar, especially given Trump's extant base of supporters.
So here is the question, given the GoP nomination is within real reach of Trump and given that Trump will almost certainly lose in the general election and deliver the presidency to the D nominee, why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?
Keep defending Trump and he will secure the plurality and become the GoP nominee.
He will then lose the general election and you will have accomplished what you fear most — putting a D back in the oval office.
Show me where this article made any accusation except to mention in the abstract "Trump's misdeeds" and his "disqualifying qualities and behavior". I am quite willing to accuse Trump of specific wrongdoing, but this article is not about accusing Trump; rather it is about the counterproductive behavior of the GoP.
Trump has announced his candidacy. Your objection to speaking about the negative affects on the GoP of having Trump succeed are ridiculous. This is the perfect time (given we cannot change the past) for the GoP to distance themselves from Trump and allow him to become irrelevant.
What does the committee have to do with this article? I just offered examples of excuses. And I have not admitted anything. I stated upfront when this was news that the committee was biased and that it can only advise and report. Stating the obvious upfront is not an 'admission'.
This question is typically done to suggest that Trump has done no wrong because there have been no indictments (yet).
I always speak of Trump's wrongdoing, not his guilt. But inevitably GoP partisans ignore this and go back to guilt. Trump is not (yet) guilty of any wrongdoings because none have been adjudicated. Wrongdoings is what I speak of, not guilt.
Is our unfortunate reality; don't be naïve.
Yes it is. And it is also in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump cover.
This is what you resort to?
No... it's what you resort to. You only make accusations like that when you can't rebut a point intelligently.
Oh cut the shit Jack. You make a totally petty complaint that the 'pack' has not yet been decided because only Trump has declared.
That is both petty and irrelevant. The 'pack' can be discussed today as the likely candidates that pundits have listed; we have a list of potential candidates right now. They are not the official candidates but they certainly can (and are) discussed.
You have resorted to nit-picking individual words and, in this case, demanding that I cannot refer to the potential candidates discussed by the media as 'the pack'.
You are being ridiculous.
Riiiiiiight... you are accusing people of failing to do something... and the evidence you will accept that they are actually doing this thing will not possibly be available for 20 months.
You accuse people of "making excuses" and then "defending Trump". In the comments, you have then clarified your definitions of those phrases align with very liberal or left-wing points of view.
And?? It seems completely lost on you that nobody else has announced, so there really isn't anyone else to support yet. It also seems completely lost on you that announcing a presidential candidacy right now is wildly inappropriate....which is why Trump is the only one doing it.
Ronald Reagan announced his first presidential candidacy in November 1975, 12 months before the election. Bill Clinton announced in October 1991...13 months. Even Barack Obama waited until February of 2007.
Just because Trump has shown up 6 months early does not mean the game has started yet.
It is not the perfect time. It is not even the appropriate time. It is far, far too early. Actively opposing Trump right now only plays into his hands.
That doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid question. Many people, including you, regularly accuse Trump of one form of illegal activity or another. Yet after years of investigations, the man hasn't even been charged with an actual crime. He was even impeached the first time on charges that weren't actually crimes.
The silence on criminal charges is absolutely deafening to anybody trying to remain remotely objective. On the surface, it would seem like investigating Trump and not finding crimes would be like investigating Lilliput and not finding short people. Yet that's what we see.
You've used the word "steal" at least a dozen times in this seed alone.
If he broke a law, then let's charge him. If he didn't, stop whining.
I am stating that many GoP members are making excuses for Trump. You would have to be blind to not see that this is taking place.
Yes. It is ridiculous for you to pretend you do not understand the meaning of those phrases.
I have stated that only Trump has announced. More petty nonsense from you. The point of Trump announcing is that we now know he is running. That means we now know that he has a chance of being nominated. That is significant. Get it?
He announced therefore we know he is a candidate who could be nominated.
It is indeed the perfect time. If you do not want Trump to be the nominee, the moment he announced his candidacy is the perfect time to work to ensure he is not the nominee. It is perfect, as I noted, because we cannot go back in time and detach from Trump in 2021. The present is the best we can do. Starting right now, the GoP should be distancing itself from Trump and working to ensure he is irrelevant.
Bullshit. I accuse Trump of wrongdoing. I am very careful and very clear. You are just making shit up.
Yeah, Jack, Trump tried to steal the election. Do you deny that? Might as well, your comments have moved into utter absurdity now.
He has not been found legally guilty of trying to steal but he certainly tried to do so.
Or are you going to tell me that Trump did not try to steal the election ... he just tried to win it dishonestly ?
Riiiiight. So factual statements are now 'petty complaints' if they interrupt your bullshit.
In November 2006 nobody had ever heard of Barack Obama. You have no clue who is even going to run, how much money they're going to raise or how well they're going to catch on. There is no pack yet. FFS, for all you know Mark Cuban will run.
This entire article is simply an exercise about you having a burr up your ass because you're irritated Republicans are not doing shit they can't actually do yet to stop a threat you are determined to overestimate dramatically. It's like you moved in with JohnRussel and now you're both drinking the same KoolAid.
I referred to the list of candidates proposed for the GoP as the pack. Your objection to my referring to the current list of potential candidates as 'the pack' is petty bullshit.
You keep insisting that 'the pack' must be defined as those who have formally announced. The pack, today, is the list of potential candidates that the media talks about. Petty, nit-picking bullshit.
Then leave the article. It is best for you to do that rather than continue engage in obnoxious petty nonsense and making this personal. You are not making an intelligent argument, you are attacking with pathetic, petty nonsense.
[✘]
Make a thoughtful comment or leave.
that may be a bridge too far...
That's a great idea...but where do we find one?
How about this?
The GoP does its job and nominates an individual who is at least a halfway decent human being who can be trusted with the power of the presidency. And they thus ensure Trump never has a chance at the nomination.
The D party then does likewise.
Oh, absolutely!!!
but I think we're both dreaming. Wake me when you wake up...lol
Or... you could switch your party preference to Republican in order to vote in the Republican primary to help nominate someone you feel would be a better candidate...
By 'you' are you talking about me personally or about people in general?
Many states offer open primaries which means nobody has to change (or pick) a party affiliation to vote in the primary.
Yep, I mean you. If you want a better candidate to win the Republican nomination then switch to that party to vote in the primary and help your preferred candidate. Just telling other people to nominate a better person never works out.
You then presume I am a D. You should never presume. In fact, I have made it quite clear that I have no party affiliation. So why engage in this nonsense?
Is that all you got out of this article? This article makes the point that the GoP is shooting itself in the foot if they allow Trump to secure the nomination.
Do you want Trump to secure the nomination? If not, then why would you object to a logical argument that it is best for the GoP, now that Trump has announced, to NOT prop Trump up but rather prop up someone they want to nominate?
Didn't presume anything, you should read better. Nowhere did I say to switch FROM a party to the Republican party, all I said was to switch to the Republican party so you can vote in the Republican primary.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. IMO it's too early to guess at who's gonna win the Republican nomination. A lot of things can happen in the next 18 months.
No, definitely do not want Trump to win the nomination. I've said that before, even in a reply to you I believe on another thread. All I can do is point out that it's still very early in the process, we do not know who else will throw their hats in ring yet and we have absolutely no knowledge on what backroom negotiations are occurring.
But you are much more vocal about the Republicans having a better candidate than Trump than you are about potential candidates for the Democrats. So it just seems to me that if the Republican nominee is such an issue for you then you should just change your party affiliation so that you can help choose the next Republican candidate. Otherwise it's all just hot air.
How inciteful.
This is not about picking who will be the R nominee but rather ensuring that Trump is not that person. The way to do that is to STOP propping him up. Quit defending / excusing / supporting Trump. When people do that they make it that much easier for Trump supporters to remain as such.
Because Trump is so excessively bad. If Trump were a D I would be saying the exact same thing about him and then the exact same thing about the Ds if they were operating as the Rs are today.
Do you truly not see that Trump is, in all of US history, the only PotUS who tried to steal a US election? Nobody has done anything even remotely close to what he did in his Big Lie campaign. Do I need to list the bullet points again?
[ As an aside, cut the personal crap. This article is not about me. ]
No, TiG is just as opinionated about Dems.
Are those your words? What makes you think he wasn't a registered republican?
I know he is neither a D or R but I engage with him more often than you do.
I guess you missed this comment from TiG:
You want to help insure that Trump is not the R nominee then it's simple. As I stated, switch to the Republican party so you can vote in the primary. Saying Trump is bad and should not be the candidate (which I happen to agree with as I've stated in the past) is just hot air unless you also can actively work to insure he does not win the nomination. It's very easy to sit and tell other people what they need to do but unless you're actually in the trenches and voting for a better candidate then you are doing nothing that any other political pundit can do which in reality is nothing but feed a base.
[✘]
Remember that I informed you that many of the states have open primaries. So nobody in these states has to switch parties. And switching parties means going from one party to another.
Gee thanks for again stating the obvious that words must ultimately translate into deeds.
Note that you just implied that everything that we discuss on social forums like this is just hot air. Every article and every comment is just hot air. So it is pointless for people to discuss things, opine, debate, etc. because unless it is followed up by action ... it is all hot air. You should now go to each article on the site and offer this insight.
So why are you opining in a forum? Why bother if it is all merely hot air?
Ironically, this article is making the recommendation that you just made: to take action (now, not wait for the primary) in response to Trump announcing his candidacy. Do you see that?
Yes, so do you now understand the point of the article? It is that the GoP members need to act to ensure Trump is not the nominee. Defending Trump is acting in direct counter to that; it is the GoP shooting its own foot.
[Deleted]
Biden repeated his MAGA diatribe through the mid-terms before Trump announced his bid for President.
Impeachments, Mueller, Jan 6th hearings and now another Special Prosecutor. Democrats definitely want Trump in the spotlight daily.
Of course. It distracts the simple minded from the damage Democrats have done to this country.
Of course the Ds want Trump front and center. If the GoP nominates Trump, it almost assures a D win for the presidency.
Kinda the point of this article. WTF is the GoP thinking by continuing to defend / excuse Trump?
What GOP people are you speaking about specifically?
Those who support Trump and those who defend / excuse him. I have stated that several times already.
Your comment is not just idiotic it's also
BULLFUCKINGSHIT!!!
Exactly. The reactionary propagandists who spew that kind of idiotic bullshit know it's fraudulent. They just don't have anything worthwhile to say.
So do cows and horses. Big deal.
Oh and Ronin2,'s cement is 100% correct. Garlands announcement of a special council right after Trump announced his candidacy is proof enough of that
Thanx for posting another idiotic comment.
Since the DOJ is part of the administration, Garland severed the DOJ from the investigation from an announced presidential candidate. The use of an outside special prosecutor was the right thing to do.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Lol yes, because Trump does not not keep inserting himself into the conversation, at every fucking turn.
Just admit that you have mentally enslaved yourself to a child molesting (we all know he molested Ivanka at least once) lose and we can at least talk on an honest level.
And honestly, this is the GOP plan for Hillary. So quit your pathetic bitching.
If we listen to these conservatives, one might get the idea that prior to the election of Joe Biden there was no such thing as inflation, crime, high gas prices, immigration, drugs and gangs. In truth every one of those issues has a historical precedent.
But even if Biden were wholly responsible for what is going on, it is not an excuse, at all, for defending Donald Trump.
I dont know if I will have to say it a million times or not, but Trumpism is all about white grievance at the loss of 'their' country to multiculturalism and many of them are loathe to let that grievance go.
Conversely, if we listen to liberals, all those things are better under Biden no matter what the facts actually are. In truth, at least some of Biden's policies can be directly linked to increases in inflation, crime, high gas prices, immigration, drugs and gangs.
You can choose to say it a million times if that makes you feel better.
That comment is so ignorant it doesn't deserve a response.
You are not supposed to be able to post to me, but maybe that restriction expired or something.
Dont make me get started on your troll ass.
Report it then instead of whining.
I am sure this will come as quite a shock, but not everyone who disagrees with you is trolling you.
Stick to what I wrote.
To quote al Jizerror;
BULLFUCKING SHIT !!!
Why is this so difficult to understand? Defending Trump means that Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, or Ted Cruz haven't got a chance of winning the Republican nomination. Defending Trump is a bulwark against backsliding by Republican deadwood.
Reagan ain't coming back. Gingrich ain't coming back. The TEA Party ain't coming back. Defending Trump prevents that. The Republican base has turned its back on what Democrats want the Republican Party to be. Democrats want to stop the Republican Party from changing but defending Trump means the Republican Party is going to change, Democrats be damned.
Defense of Trump is an internecine fight within the Republican Party. Defending Trump doesn't have anything to do with Democrats. Yet. The 2024 election may resolve the fight within the Republican Party. If it does then God have mercy on Democrats because Republicans are going to demand a mountain of political payback.
Do you think it is wise for GoP members to defend Trump and, in so doing, enable him to secure the GoP nomination?
You really believe there aren't any Republican contenders that can challenge Trump as MAGA candidates? Republican challengers are going to bide their time; it's still early.
Where did you get that?? I am saying, clearly, that if the GoP continues to excuse / defend Trump, they are making it possible for him to win the nomination by plurality.
This is a very brief article ... how could you miss this?:
'Can' does not mean 'will'. 'Can' means 'it is possible'; I would say it is quite possible. Trump can also fail to become the GoP nominee if the GoP stops defending him and making excuses for him.
And I have explained that defending Trump prevents Republican backsliding. Apparently you missed that.
Don't confuse possibility with probability. A lot of strange and bizarre things are possible. It's possible Biden and Harris would be removed before January and Pelosi becomes President. It's possible the United States could become a Communist republic allied with Russia before the next election. But those possibilities are highly improbable.
Possibilities, alone, are only used to stir the cesspool and raise a stink. An argument based on possibilities, alone, isn't grounded in reality.
Defending Trump just keeps Trump relevant. How can you not see that?
You are the one who is confused. 'Can' means 'possible', not 'probable'. The word 'likely' connotes probable.
Defending Trump keeps MAGA relevant. That's the point everyone wants to avoid seeing.
Are you actually suggesting that defending Trump does NOT keep him relevant and thus enabled to secure the nomination??
The other day a bunch of potential GOP presidential candidates gave speeches before a conservative group in Las Vegas. I think there 9 or 10 of them, including Trump and DeSantis.
Some of these prospective candidates were asked if they thought too many candidates would give the nomination to Trump. Their basic standard answer ? "the field is wide open".
Each of the 7 or 8 who are not Trump or DeSantis believes they are the one who can bring Trump and DeSantis down.
This is a course for disaster for the country and of course the Republican party.
Because the nomination is based on plurality, the more GoP candidates the more likely Trump is to be nominated.
It seems that many in the GoP cannot see the harm to the GoP that Trump brings. How can anyone not see that if Trump gets the GoP nomination the D party is almost certain to win the presidency?
That's irrelevant, because of this:
How can anyone not see that if Trump gets the GoP nomination the D party is almost certain to win the presidency?
I'm sure that the democrats in open primary states see that also and usually the democrat party tends to get a front runner as early in the process as possible, it will make it possible for democrats in later primaries to vote the republican side without the need to protect, through their voting, their preferred democrat candidate.
If you can assure me that the democrats won't take over the republican primaries and vote for Trump, as what happens here in Michigan over and over again. I for one will not vote for Trump in the primaries, but if the democrats screw the republicans again (let's face it there will be republicans who will vote for him) and Trump gets the nomination, then I will have no other choice but to help him win against the democrat policies with my vote.
Okay, so if the Ds so take over the R primary as to force Trump in as the GoP nominee, you will vote for Trump in an attempt to keep the Ds from winning the presidency.
If the GoP members do NOT vote for Trump, the crossover Ds are not likely to produce enough votes for Trump to prevail. That is, Trump would need substantial GoP votes for the D crossovers to make a difference.
Thus, it is in the best interest of the GoP to stop defending / excusing / supporting Trump so that the straggler GoP members move to someone else.
Now, you say this is irrelevant but clearly it is not: do you hold that a Trump nomination will hurt or help the GoP?
That's a rather obtuse negative observation. We're talking about Republican primaries. Keeping MAGA relevant through Trump is a threat to other Republican candidates. Republican candidates trying to challenge Trump need to become MAGA candidates, too. Or they'll fail.
Until the primaries are over and Republicans have nominated a candidate this is a Republicans-only show. It's an internal fight for control over the policy agenda of the Republican Party. What's happening isn't about Democrats. Yet.
If Democrats are going to meddle in the internal affairs of the Republican Party then turnabout is fair play. At the least, Trump will be especially useful for meddling in Democrats' primaries. It's rather obvious Democrats fear Trump so defending Trump is a backhanded way of attacking Democrats. Democrats are terrified by the possibility that Trump can win the next election. And Democrats are so easily misled because they do not understand the difference between possibility and probability.
Remember that Democrats had convinced themselves that Clinton could easily beat Trump. Democrats are worried they may be terribly wrong again.
Yes, that would be correct.
If the GoP members do NOT vote for Trump, the crossover Ds are not likely to produce enough votes for Trump to prevail. That is, Trump would need substantial GoP votes for the D crossovers to make a difference.
As I noted, there will be R's that will vote for him, there will be no complete "NOT vote", and I believe you underestimate the amount of D's that crossover especially when there is no competition of the D side of the primary. I personally know many who will vote for Trump no matter what, but with a few, DeSantis is a viable option.
Of course he will hurt, but that is irrelevant, because the D's will try their level best to saddle the R's with him anyways.
Nothing in your comment addressed mine so why even reply?
Of course the primary is about Republicans. How can you possibly get that I think otherwise given what I wrote? This article is about the GoP, Nerm. It is not about the Ds.
Everything in my comment addressed yours. And, yes, the context is politics within the Republican Party. Defending Trump has significance within the Republican Party. Democrats' hair-on-fire fearmongering only serves to meddle in the politics within the Republican Party.
Trump is relevant in the Republican Party as the standard bearer of MAGA. Trump is not a Reagan Republican. Trump is not a Gingrich Republican. Trump is not a TEA Party Republican. Trump challenges the Republican Party legacy of supply-side neoliberal globalization that has been painted with libertarian lipstick. MAGA is not an iteration of Reaganomics; MAGA threatens to completely displace Reaganomics.
Trying to impose the Democrats' rhetoric onto the internal politics of the Republican Party as a measure of 'good' or 'bad' only makes Democrats part of the process. Democrats want to snipe from the sidelines and claim they're not in the game. It's no secret that Democrats rely heavily on the politics of stoking divisions and starting dog fights. Democrats want to take advantage of the fight within the Republican Party but are alarmed that, this time, the dogs they're urging to fight may bite Democrats instead of biting each other.
If Democrats believe Trump makes it harder for Republicans to win elections then Democrats will obviously want more of Trump. Democrats will try to use Trump to divide the Republican Party. The danger for Democrats is that the dog fight Democrats want can turn into a blood feud. If MAGA becomes dominant within the Republican Party then Democrats' version of supply-side neoliberal globalization painted with socialist lipstick will be on the chopping block. In that event, Democrats will have to become MAGA, too.
Do you want Trump to secure the nomination for the GoP?
If that is what is necessary to rid the Republican Party of supply-side neoliberal globalization painted with phony libertarian lipstick, then so be it.
A candidate capable of turning MAGA into a policy agenda that displaces Reaganomics would be preferable. And there are Republicans capable of accomplishing that, if they choose.
If the only choices are between Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Donald Trump, then Donald Trump should be the nominee. Nominating a clown would be better for the party (and the country) than nominating a devil.
It is a simple question, Nerm. If you think Trump is good for the GoP you would want him as the nominee, if not, you would not want him.
I take your answer as a net: "I do not want Trump to be the nominee"
Then does it not make sense, given Trump has announced, for the GoP to NOT keep defending him and instead focus on finding and supporting others?
The Ds obviously would want Trump to be the nominee. Why is it that so many GoP members are so willing to play into their hands by keeping Trump relevant?
And I've provided a simple answer. As I pointed out, a candidate that can turn MAGA into a policy agenda would be preferable. The MAGA base wants a MAGA candidate. If Trump is the only MAGA candidate then Trump would be acceptable if not desirable.
Why do you think there won't be an attempt to find a MAGA challenger to Trump? Democrats are all about Trump. The press is all about Trump. Democrats and the press are only giving Trump any air. So, its necessary to continue defending Trump until the primaries get under way.
At this point, the only way to keep MAGA relevant is to keep Trump relevant. That's the only thing Democrats and the press are allowing. If Republicans turn their backs on Trump now (before the primaries) then that's to the advantage of the neoliberal deadwood (otherwise known as the Republican establishment). At this point in time, making Trump irrelevant allows the Republican Party to backslide.
“The MAGA base wants a MAGA candidate.”
Too bad George Wallace is gone…though his spirit lives on.
George Wallace was a Democrat. Too bad Democrats don't know the history of their own politics. Maybe that's why Democrats keep repeating the mistakes of their own past.
Where have I suggested that?
That is stupid. MAGA is core GoP policy. Plenty of GoP candidates can take the MAGA banner (even by a different name) and run with it.
Unbelievable. You think Trump is positive for the GoP? You think it better to support Trump right now rather than focus on the future with almost certainly better leaders? Amazing. With that kind of 'thinking' it is no wonder the GoP is so screwed up.
“Too bad Democrats don't know the history of their own politics.”
And those that don’t learn from the historical shortcomings are doomed to repeat it.
Progression vs. regression… and just which party longs for the past?
So tired of the lamest of lame excuses in which to hang one’s maga hat.
Yes one of those staunchly racist conservatives back when both parties had their equal share of libs and cons.
Too bad you confuse ideologies with party names.
Maybe that's why certain pundits make Josef Goebels proud. Simplify the lie and repeat it over and over.
That is the reality that Republicans today seem desperate to obfuscate. Just under a century ago both parties had their share of liberals and conservatives. The Northern Democrats tended to be liberal while the Southern Democrats were almost all conservatives. The same goes for Republicans, the region they came from almost always determined whether they were liberal or conservative, as shown by the 1964 civil rights act vote by region.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
Of course, even though political party power by region has changed dramatically since the civil rights act was passed, the region they live in is still a major factor as to whether they are liberal or conservative. So, if you color coded America by just "liberal" and "conservative", let's say red for conservative and blue for liberal, not much has changed in the last century, the Southern States are still red and have the pretty much the same white conservative confederate flag wavers and their descendants they passed their beliefs and prejudices onto inhabiting the same cities, States, homes and positions of political power.
The only difference today is that the conservatives that were in the Democratic party migrated to the Republican party after the 1964 civil votes act was passed by a majority of Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic President. And the liberals in the Republican party ended up migrating to the Democratic party as the Republican party began to demand conservative conformity. So, what were once purple parties (a mix of liberals and conservatives on each side) governing these blue and red regions, we now have torched earth political parties that reject any "mixing" of political colors, it must be red vs blue, there shall be no mingling of the political races as it were. Being a 'liberal' Republican is now verboten.
Yeah, it was all those big government southern conservatives who supported their fellow southerner's big society. This should be obvious, and it is to anyone who knows the first thing about history, but racists were both conservative and liberal. The idea that only conservatives were racist is one of the left wing creation myths that became popular the last few decades, as democrats became less informed and more emotionally invested in their party.
MAGA is not yet core Republican policy. I agree that there are Republicans that incorporate MAGA ideas into a Republican Party policy agenda. But those Republicans need to choose to run; they can't accomplish anything from the sidelines. No one should blame those Republicans for wanting to avoid the shitshow Democrats and the press have created.
I believe MAGA is positive for the Republican Party. Even Democrats recognize that. Democrats have been moving to include America First into their politics and policies. America First has been deeply embedded into Democrats climate change agenda.
If Trump is the only one willing to make MAGA ideas core to the Republican Party policy agenda then Trump is not only positive for the party, Trump is necessary. Better to have a MAGA candidate that can't win an election to a Republican returning the party to the failed status quo. Even the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, without any doubt, that the military cannot fight without factories. Hollowing out the industrial base of the United States to promote financial flimflam has been a huge mistake.
No one trusts Democrats to manage the economy. Democrats' policies won't work without the rich becoming richer. So, it falls upon Republican shoulders to make America First.
It is GoP red meat. Trump simply packaged up what his supporters wanted to hear.
Not the question I asked.
Better to have Trump who will lose than to have another GoP candidate who is not exclusive to MAGA???
Madness.
So tell me, why are you so against making America great. Do you want to live in a shitty mediocre country?
Why make such ridiculous comments? Do you not understand that this article is about securing a decent candidate for the GoP? Do you actually believe that the best person for the USA president is Trump??
When did I say that I wanted Trump ? I do think his policies were and are better anything the democrats have come up with. One of his policies was to put America's interests first in negotiations with others. Another was to keep America safe and to secure it borders to stem the flow of illegal aliens and illegal drugs. He also wanted to get manufacturing jobs back to the states. He also had us energy independent and not dependent of foreign oil . I will vote for the candidates that also embraces those goals.
Are you trying to tell me you don't want any of that? Why not?
Your communication is vague. You ask me why I do not want MAGA when I have said nothing about MAGA but I have talked of Trump. That means you equate Trump with MAGA. Your question to me implies that you want MAGA and thus Trump (by your own binding of Trump with MAGA).
No, I am trying to tell you what I wrote in the article. Read it. The article is brief and easy to read. The message is that the GoP is harming itself by not pushing Trump aside (and, worse, by defending / excusing him).
I will go out on a limb and assume you know what that word stands for. But for the other liberals out there I'll tell you;
M.Stands for make.
A. Stands for America . You know this country the United States of America.
G. Stands for great. To be superior.
A. Stands for again. To return or do again.
That is what I want. That may have been a slogan used by Trump but it is a excellent goal for this country regardless of who uses it.
All I see liberals do is denigrate that word. I would like to know why the left does not want America to be great.
Is it just to be contrary?
Is it so other countries don't feel bad or inferior.(BTW I don't care if they do)
Is it just because Trump used that in his campaign?
Not true. This is from your comment to Nerm_l in 5.1.21.
I on the other hand have, until this comment, not mentioned MAGA.
Now will you answer my questions or will you duck them like usual.
You are blabbering. I want our nation to be as strong and successful as possible.
This article has nothing to do with MAGA. It is about Trump and the GoP. Nowhere does the article mention MAGA. My responding to a poster who equated Trump with MAGA has nothing to do with the article itself.
My comment (and this article) is about Trump being bad for the GoP and bad for the USA.
Your support of Trump helps him be in reach of the GoP nomination. If Trump gets the nomination, he will likely lose in the general (meaning the D will win). Your support of Trump amplified by others who think like you will be the reason.
Question.
In your opinion, how far back in time do you need to go to find American
greatness that would make you feel better about your country? 1945? 1969?
MAGA the slogan only appeals to the currently aggrieved socially and financially
while it insults both those who are successful and satisfied and the poorest
minorities who haven't shared in that greatness yet.
It's as divisive as labelling anyone as deplorable.
Wow. You think that the demise of the Republican Party because of trumpism demands "political payback"?
How about the rest of us pay these asshole trumpsters back for what they have put the country through for the past seven years.
You were your own worst enemies John. Dragging the country through seemingly endless investigations turning up jack shit and trying again and again. Other than that, please expound on what the "Trumpsters" put the country through.
It's the demise of an old Republican Party. The Republican base is moving on and the party will likely emerge much stronger. Boomer politics is fading fast.
What have Republicans put the country through for the last seven years? Democrats are the ones who have their hair-on-fire.
Many Republicans see Abbott sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities as payback by holding Democrat feet to their own fire. Republicans see the cap on SALT deductions as payback by showing Democrats don't walk their own talk. Expect more of the same.
"You were your own worst enemies John. Dragging the country through seemingly endless investigations turning up jack shit and trying again and again. Other than that, please expound on what the "Trumpsters" put the country through."
Unreal. We're seeking justice 'by dragging the country through 'seemingly endless investigations'
Because of all the 'seemingly endless' shit that #45 has pulled and still attempting to pull
First of all, you weren't seeking justice. You were seeking to take a duly elected PotUS down and out of office cuz you didn't like him as a person.
Secondly, since the cat seems to have JR's keyboard, perhaps YOU can enlighten the readers of the list of things that the Trumpsters put the country through since you seem to agree with the statement.
It never was about "justice". That's the feel good excuse they use. Reality is, it is all out of the fact they lost an election. They had to come up with a story to justify why one of the most horrid candidates Democrats ran lost. Hence the "Russua Collusion" hoax and "investigation" that we all come to find out was done by the Democrats with the help of the media. Even now, with the appointment of yet another special council shows it's not about the supposed crimes, it's about keeping Democrats in power.
It's been seven years of continual investigation. Where's the justice?
Ain't it time to put up or shut up?
[✘]
False
Seven years? WTF are you talking about?
From the time he announced till today STILL, 2022-2015=7
Cute emoji.
Didn't think you could. Expected
That's why yet another "Special Counsel" has been appointed. They don't FEEL they've gotten justice for anything they've fabricated.
In essence, it's an abuse of power.
Wasn't talking to you.
I guess you may need a refresher course on how a forum such as this works.
Nerm doesn't need your help making up nonsense and bullshit.
Didn't think I could what?
I proved you wrong, as usual.
Handed you your ass, as usual.
Your statement was false, as usual. "First of all, you weren't seeking justice. You were seeking to take a duly elected PotUS down and out of office cuz you didn't like him as a person."
False, as usual
Didn't think you could answer this part of my comment to you..........
"Secondly, since the cat seems to have JR's keyboard, perhaps YOU can enlighten the readers of the list of things that the Trumpsters put the country through since you seem to agree with the statement."
You didn't like him as a person and he beat the anointed one. Had to get him out of office no matter the price.
You proving me wrong. hahahaha I think not in this lifetime. You proved nothing except that you won't accept the truth.
If Trump is nominated by the GoP, will that help or harm the GoP?
And what does that have to do with 5.2.12?
That was my extremely gentle and subtle way of encouraging you to get on topic. Your @5.2.12 has nothing to do with this article.
Topical question: If Trump is nominated by the GoP, will that help or harm the GoP?
5.2.12 is on topic with 5.2.6. I guess you don't know how conversations work.
Not one of your comments have been on this topic. I have been very tolerant. So, given your pissy response, make a comment on the topic or leave
[Deleted]
kudos, I have got to learn how to do that fade out deletion...
aka troll ghosting...
Jesus, yes we know you are pulling for Russia and Putin, fuck off already.
Assuming that Trump would lose in the general election in two years without even knowing the opponent seems more like wishful thinking that any insight into the future. It seems if the democrats really believed that and the fact they have shown a propensity to back Republicans in primaries they felt would lose in the general election should we expect to see democrats support Donald for the nomination?
Donald Trump tried to overturn the proper functioning of the United States government, tried to extort election officials into helping him steal the election, and sat idly by while a riot that he had inspired took place at the national legislature. And you think there is inadequate reason to assume he would lose the 24 election? God help America if you are right.
And you think there is inadequate reason to assume he would lose the 24 election?
What I think is just because that may be the over riding factor for you it may not be for the majority of voting Americans. I think the overall apathy toward the Jan 6th committee showed that.
It does seem to be a premature conclusion.
Sure, it is possible that Trump could win the general election. To do so, the Ds would have to put up a candidate that is worse than a former PotUS who tried to steal a US election:
While possible, it is unlikely that the D party will nominate someone worse than Trump.
We know your bullet points. You repeat them as much as possible.
Trying to steal an election seems to be your only negative point about Trump. Nobody cared about the Jan 6th hearings. Not sure why you think anyone will care in the future.
There is always another Hillary....
That is the only negative I would need. Any sitting PotUS who tried to steal a US election is disqualified IMO. I wonder why you would even consider voting for someone who tried to steal a US presidential election.
And it is good that you possibly have noticed that I have not complained about Trump's policies but rather his integrity and his narcissistic / unpatriotic / harmful acts.
I thought you were talking about the nation. As I already stated, very little attention has been given to Jan 6th. Your prediction that Trump will lose is premature IMO. There are still many unkown variables to come.
Please provide where I stated I did...you can state your own opinions but not mine.
Would you consider voting for Trump?
No.
Why then does it bother you when I and others in the nation note Trump's negative actions such as his Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI documents? Given you clearly do not want Trump as the GoP nominee, does it not serve your purposes if those running interference and supporting Trump were lessened?
Stated differently, those who continue to support, defend, and/or excuse Trump enable him to potentially achieve plurality and then take the only GoP presidential nomination slot available for 2024. Would you not applaud efforts to ensure Trump does not find his way into the nomination?
Again you are making assumptions based on what comments exactly? Post my comments and we will discuss your observation.
I should attack someone because they support Trump? That isn't my thing. That seems to be your thing, attacking the supporter not Trump. There are many good points about Trump from others.
We will stop discusses me now unless you can provide comments to support your remarks.
You may discuss yourself though.
When you make comments objecting to my article it is no great assumption that you disagree with it.
Where, exactly, do you see me suggesting that?
My point, obviously, is that those who are supporting / defending / excusing Trump are enabling him to be the nominee. Thus anyone who does not want Trump to be the nominee should be opposed to those who support / defend and excuse Trump.
Thus one would expect that you would applaud the idea that people should move away from Trump and rally behind a different GoP candidate.
So disagreeing with someone is equal to bothersome in your mind.
wow, doing your afternoon stretches?
Disagreeing with an article does suggest that you object to the content. So it is no great leap to conclude that you object to me listing Trump's Big Lie campaign wrongdoing.
So let's be clear, does it bother you when I and others in the nation note Trump's negative actions in his Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI document handling?
If so, why?
If not, why make snide comments in response?
Maybe that because Trump's actions are unimportant for the purpose of defending Trump. Support for Trump isn't just about beating Democrats.
Well, stated differently, if there aren't any MAGA contenders then Trump's chance of being the nominee is greatly improved. So, the relevant question becomes will there be MAGA contenders? Right now it appears there will be. But it's waaay too early to make any sort of predictions.
Anyone that prevents the Republican Party backsliding into the politics of Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, or Romney will have earned applause. Any Republican candidate that can turn MAGA into a solid policy agenda will be hailed as the new leader of the Republican Party. Democrats will do just about anything to thwart that.
Gosh, are you always obtuse? I disagreed about your conclusion that Trump will lose. That bothers you not me, since you are going on and on about it with no logical explanations.
Can you not accept differing opinions?
I am sure you believe that.
Do you think it is beneficial for the GoP to continue to support / excuse / defend Trump per the Big Lie campaign?
Do you want Trump to have a chance at the nomination?
“Maybe that because Trump's actions are unimportant for the purpose of defending Trump.”
An honest response, if only in admitting that character, honesty, and leadership are somehow ignorantly irrelevant or not at least a prerequisite.
I recommend this be your final snark / personal reply.
Do you object to me listing Trump's Big Lie campaign wrongdoing? If so, why?
I recommend you re-read my comments and don't reply.
Stretching is important when someone is going to start their twisted circular logic.
How is asking you if Trump tried to steal (or "win" illegitimately) the election circular logic?
It is not a certainty, but surely you recognize that a 78 year old Trump's chances of winning a general election after all he did in his Big Lie, TS/SCI documents, etc. is slim.
I would need about 2 more years and know who the dem nominee was to even guess. I would question if any nominee would beat him and joe would be a liability if he was the nominee based on polls about people not really wanting him to run. Voters are a fickle lot with short memories. The idea that the big lie and document issues would be the overriding factor in 2 years strikes me as a bit ridiculous.
That is a sad note ... to think that the electorate would vote into office the only person in US history who has tried to steal a US election.
We are going to have to give up on some of these people, and just write them off.
I am confident that many of the Trump supporters are simply defending the GoP. That is, if they were to admit the truth about Trump they would, in their minds, be doing a disservice to the GoP by acknowledging that the 'opposition' was correct about Trump.
That explains the over-the-top irrational responses we see routinely. After all, if someone cannot even acknowledge that Trump engaged in wrongdoing with his Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI security compromise they clearly are willing to compromise their own credibility (fall on the sword) to defend the GoP. They will look foolish rather than acknowledge a negative against their party.
So, if by 'write them off' you mean that they will actually support Trump, I do not think it is that bad. I suspect many who support Trump in forums like this will not vote for him in the primary. In the primary, they can be honest to themselves. In forums, they have 'a cause' that they must defend and an 'enemy' that they must always fight (must always disagree with).
I mean write them off because they are not persuadable nor do they have interest in hearing the facts.
Given that meaning, I wrote 'them' off a long time ago. It is obvious who wants to actually discuss topics and who is simply arguing and snarking.
This article intentionally posed a very simple notion: nominating Trump is bad for the GoP so supporting/defending/excusing Trump is bad for the GoP.
Note how many GoP members are willing to acknowledge this obvious notion. Fascinating, eh?
Two people can often look at events or data and come to different conclusions and hold different levels of importance with regards to them.
In other words not everyone thinks like you.
Did Trump try to steal the election in 2020?
Would you vote for someone who, as PotUS, tried to steal an election he lost?
Would nominating Trump help or harm the GoP?
Was he trying to figure out ways to be the winner of the election. Yep. Did he actually plan a coup thinking a couple hundred people in the capital would make it happen? Do you really believe he thought democracy is so fragile that there was a chance something like that would work?
I will let you know if and when that happens after an actual bi partisan investigation into the matter and not a group of people that started with a conclusion and then looked for ways to support it.
It would harm the GOP. My hope is that there is enough push back to make him realize there is no chance for him to win or to run as an independent therefore ruining any chance of the GOP taking the white house in 2024 and back out.
Now my question for you: Do you think Donald had any positive achievements in the 4 years he was president? When is the last time you voted for a republican in an election, any election?
A fine example of providing cover for Trump at the expense of the GoP. Trump apologetics.
More apologetics ... "Trump did nothing wrong unless determined by a court of law". But he did do wrong (many times and obviously) and we can all determine that without a finding of legal guilt.
Indeed!
My hope as well.
Of course, Trump executed the GoP playbook (as would any GoP PotUS) and there are of course good things in the GoP platform (as there are good things in the D platform). For example, encouraging domestic business (in the abstract) is net good (how that is done is relevant though). I would be more enthusiastic if Trump had actually curtailed the growing national debt but he wound up blowing it up.
So where have you seen me criticize Trump's policies? Never see that? How odd, right? Kind of of messes up your presumptive stereotype. So why do you presume that I am a D and that I vote for Ds? As a rule, I never state online who I vote for, but in the abstract, nobody would deem me a D partisan based on my voting history.
Let me reiterate not everyone thinks like you, that does not make them Trump apologetics.
Also, I did not accuse you of anything, just asked you a question or two to better understand you. I know many many many people here like to make accusations about people based on a few comments but I would rather ask the question up front rather than accuse and put someone on the defensive. I have learned asking the question usually gets a more honest response, as I answered your questions honestly.
Making excuses for Trump is Trump apologetics.
And I responded honestly.
Do you recognize that Trump is relevant only because he has people who support and defend him? Many of his supporters are die-hard and will remain no matter what (I think he really could shoot someone and they would support him). Others, however, are quite capable of shifting loyalties. But those who diminish the severity of his Big Lie campaign actions reduce the likelihood that he will lose supporters.
This should be obvious. A PotUS tried to steal a presidential election for the first time in US history. He did this with a variety of methods for about two months. The wrongdoing is blatantly obvious and waaaaay over-the-top. Such an act should, in any rational mind, eliminate Trump from consideration for that office. But if people continue to deflect and downplay then they wind up dulling the sharp edge. They are, in effect, providing cover for Trump to continue to rally support for the nomination (even if they do not support Trump).
This should be obvious, but (obviously) it is not.
Then we don't define making excuses for Trump the same.
Who knows why Trump is relevant. Maybe they think he is best for their own best interests. Maybe they don't like the government and like to see a shakeup. Maybe they are not believing all the negative things the press says about him because they don't trust the press. Maybe they think the Trump commission is a sham and they just don't like to see someone get railroaded. Maybe they like the fact he can afford Stormy Daniels. I don't presume to speak for others. I can speak for myself and I wish he would go away.
I am not sure I buy into "But those who diminish the severity of his Big Lie campaign actions reduce the likelihood that he will lose supporters". I think there are plenty of people that are shifting loyalties even though the big lie is not a major factor(maybe a minor factor though). I think you are seeing it now after he said he was running and called Desantis a name. I seem to have heard there are now never again Trumpers making an appearance. There is a certain point when the baggage outweighs the good, maybe Donald is finally there . Although that is just conjecture on my part.
You seem to keep going back to people should interpret things as you have because it is so "obvious" or "rational" to you. I suggest people holding onto what ever they believe also do it because they think it is "obvious" or "rational" to them and believe your interpretation is neither "obvious" or "rational".
Who is right? As always the truth is probably someplace in the middle and everyone gets to make that decision for themselves. And as far as I am concerned that is OK. I won't try and shove my "obvious" and "rational" views down anyone's throat and I won't try and swallow anyone's views just because they seem to think they are "obvious" and "rational".
And don't even get me started with the way some people throw around the term "fact" or "FACT" somehow thinking the capital letters make it indisputable.
I suspect so too.
This is the third time you have made this about me. This is the first time, now, that I point this out. It does not matter if people think like me. Focus not on me but on the facts and logic:
If Trump gets the nomination, that will be net bad for the GoP. You can either agree or not. It looks like you agree.
If people keep making excuses / deflecting / supporting Trump, he will have a chance to secure the nomination. Not sure you agree with that but I find it odd that anyone would not see this.
Just knock it off. This is a forum for opinions. You have been 'shoving' your "not everyone thinks like you" down my throat while complaining that I am making a strong argument.
If you disagree with my argument you are of course welcome to make a counter-argument. Just don't make it personal.
Good idea. I have written off trying to have logical discourse with several people here for quite awhile
The Dems are, rightly IMO, betting on the "anyone but Trump" vote. I think it will pay off for them again.
I hope not since that means Trump would have been the nominee.
The GOP is sick as shit, we can't hlp them but only hope that eventually the fever breaks.
I agree, the GoP is still broken and dysfunctional. What amazes me is how many resist the first step in healing: dropping Trump.
One more time......
Trump's delusional hard core election denier base is not large enough to secure the nomination for him.
DeSantis will stay quiet and ignore all the drama until Spring.
Explain how you know this. Trump need only win a plurality to secure the nomination.
42% of republicans identify as MAGA republicans. That's a considerable chunk.
"42% of republicans identify as MAGA republicans."
Explain how you know this. JR says it's only 30%.
... are the morons that consistently vote in GOP primaries.
But it is easily enough of a base to fuck over any GOP candidate that isnt Trump. The funny thing is some of you all think donald trump is concerned about anything but himself. He is the most self absorbed asshole of all time, he is selfishness personified, He will definitely launch a 3rd party bid (if for no other reason than to try and stay out of prison) just to fuck over the eventual GOP nominee. Trump is a spiteful cunt, the worst of all human traits allowed to the front. Never forget that.
If the gop nominates Trump Biden wins 2nd term!
At then 82, if his polling stays in the low 40's, he will be challenged for the Dem nomination by someone younger and further left than Biden.
More than likely, Gavin Newsom. That's all the country needs. The way of the radical west.
The Democrats will nominate the man proven to be capable of whooping Trump if the gop is doomed to nominate Trump...
Newsom might be best to beat Desantis.
Judging by November 8th, there are no states won by Biden that are trending towards the gop. In fact, the opposite!
I've made no predictions about what Party will win the WH in 2024.
Were all the Repub House gains in red states?
What happened in Miami-Dade wasn't a fluke, and the trend is likely to spread
Interesting. I wonder if things don't change in the next two years and the dems stick with biden then trump might have a decent shot to win. Might be time for a libertarian.
Trouble is the choice (realistically) will still be only between the D and the R. If we have Biden vs. Trump then one can only hope that the V.P. candidates are decent.
Gavin is laying the groundwork nationally. Additionally:
“Pete Buttigieg. Pete Buttigieg if Biden steps aside”
Let it be Pete Buttigieg.
The one man who has the mental acuity, the gravitas, and the eloquence required to unite rather than further the divide.
So are you saying that Jimmy Carter II is the way to go? Wait make that Jimmy Carter III. We already have II. And he is just as big a pussy as Carter was. And gets as many if not more chuckles at the mention of his name worldwide.
Is there any D candidate put forward that you would not ridicule?
Damned good question. You have a list to choose from? I'll gladly respond to each.
I have no list. But since you did not even name a single D I have my answer.
Is there any politician that can't be ridiculed?
Anyone can be ridiculed. The question is really if there is any candidate that he would NOT ridicule. In other words, a candidate that would / could be criticized for political positions but would not likely be ridiculed. Would you, for example, ridicule Amy Klobuchar?
No you don't. Who is actually running. Then you'll get your answer.........and mine
Just what the hell do you think I criticized Buttigieg and Biden for? Policies. Being they are candy asses when it comes to the hard stuff...........Like trade equalization, NATO contributions, the Norks, China. Not to mention South Bend, Indiana's greatness with Mayor Pete. And have you seen any stories coming out of California?
As Far as Klobuchar, no thanks unless she's changed since her last run. If Tulsi Gabbard hadn't jumped ship it seems, she would make me think twice prior to voting for whatever R was the candidate.
This ⇣ is what you consider to be an adult critique of policies?
Yep. If it weren't for their approach on matters due to their policies and beliefs, I may have a change of heart. But at this point, I think I've seen enough unless something changes between now and 2024.
“I may have a change of heart.”
Just name it and claim it, just jim…
What you write, Jim, is what matters. A criticism on policy would be just that: stating a policy and noting what you find wrong in it. For example, some criticize Carter for being too focused on government processes and not properly focused on what would actually manifest as good for the American people. Calling someone a pussy or merely comparing them to the derogatory partisan caricature of Carter held by the GoP is simply juvenile ridicule.
Opinions do vary........greatly.
At least come up with your own platitude.
[✘]
Of course not.
I think Buttigieg is ideal as far as candidates go.
That's all some have.
He couldn't run a city properly and he sure is doing a poor job at transportation secretary. Why would you want him. Because he's gay?
Bernie, Pete, Cory & AOC supported Biden in 20!
There is no reason to think they wouldn't, again.
P:erhaps their ambitions are stronger than yours.
Why do my personal ambitions matter?
My only ambition is that Democrats win.
They want to be president and you don't.
They don't. What he was alluding to, since we have never heard of you running for higher office, is that those people may be more ambitious in that regard.
Keep defending Trump
Which as we see here on a daily basis, means gives progressives free reign to lie about all things Trump. Sticking up for reality turns one into a "Trump defender."
Point out that the media censored and lied about the Biden laptop and you are "defending Trump" Point out that Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and any Russian to interfere in the 2016 election and you are defending Trump. Point out the FBI lied to the FISA Court in order to spy on Trump and you are "defending Trump." Point out the "Steele Dossier" was worthless propaganda paid for by Hillary Clinton and you are defending Trump etc etc....
Reality:
Trump is a former PotUS who tried to steal a US election:
Stick up for that.
Nice deflection!
I stated explicitly what I mean by defending Trump. You ignored it.
In contrast, not once here or on this site have I listed anything in your list as examples of improperly defending Trump.
The 800lb gorilla in the room is the Big Lie campaign. Followed by the violation of the PRA and compromising national security.
Was it wrong for Trump to do what I listed @10.1 per his Big Lie campaign? Would you defend his actions? Would you defend his taking of TS/SCI documents (compromising national security) and not fully cooperating immediately on their safe return?
Have I ever? Stealing elections is bad. It was bad when LBJ did it. It was bad when JFK did it. Didn't seem to bother Democrats much though. I'm one of the few people who thinks the mishandling of classified information and not fully cooperating with investigators is disqualifying no matter what the letter is after their name.
Who here is defending Trump?
Although there are (obviously) members who defend/excuse/support Trump, members of this forum are irrelevant to the nomination. This article is about the GoP nomination and then the subsequent general election.
I am talking about the electorate. Is it your position that Trump has an insignificant amount of people defending / supporting / excusing him?
If Trump support were insignificant then he has no chance to secure the nomination and all is well. Illustrate how this is the case.
Forgive them, TiG, for they know not what they do.
How many GoP members have come into this article and honestly acknowledge that it is best for the GoP to drop its support / excuses / defense of Trump so that the GoP can, with certainty, have someone other than Trump as their 2024 nominee?
How much deflection and other nonsense in response to the intentionally narrow focus of this brief article on that single posit?
I do wonder how many in the GoP understand that supporting / excusing / defending Trump enables him and that if he were to secure the nomination (plurality is all that is needed) he will hand the presidency to the D candidate?
The deflections indicate that they are defending the indefensible.
They still support Trump.
Could be. Another possibility is that people defend Trump because they believe doing so defends the GoP.
On top of that, many probably have a hard time admitting that the GoP totally screwed up with Trump. Thus if they cease defending Trump they are 'admitting' that the GoP has sold it soul (so to speak).
Whatever it is, I remain amazed that some will compromise their integrity and make utterly foolish comments rather than simply acknowledge the obvious.
Some people seem to think if you are not going according to their script
Democrat Do you renounce Trump. Republican I do renounce him. Democrat And all his works? Republican I do renounce them.
Then you are defending him. Personally I would like to know what Donald's involvement in
Jan 6th was.
I would like to have the Trump supporters on the commission to try and spin everything
that was presented. Then I would have all the information in order to make an informed
decision and not just be spoon fed only one side and expected to swallow it. Of course
Nancy made that impossible. I have to wonder why she was so afraid for all the information
to be made public.
Defending Trump is not a complicated notion.
Downplaying his wrongdoing, making excuses for it, deflecting from it, etc. is defending Trump.
Wanting to hear all the information before making a decision as to what his wrong doing was is not so complicated either. Why do you think so many people here are so against the idea?
You watched most of this happen. You mean to tell me that you cannot already determine that Trump tried to steal the election and that what he did was wrong and that he should never be allowed to return to the Oval office??
Because in their minds, Trump is guilty of whatever shit they can throw against the walls. Facts be damned.
I don't agree with what Donald did but I want more information before I make that determination. I am skeptical since Nancy was so against all the information coming out and will withhold a final judgement until I have all the information and answers I want. If it was such a slam dunk she should not have had a problem with Donald supporters and the whole idea of promoting this as bipartisan is laughable
Why do you think so many people are against an actual fair and bipartisan investigation?
Do you think it is good for the GoP if Trump wins the nomination?
Do you think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election?
Do you think that was wrong and should disqualify him from being PotUS again?
It is interesting that they are so concerned about all the facts coming out or at least listening to Donald supporters of congress try to spin it to his advantage and let the people decide if they buy it or not. Seems like they just want to be believed and not have people actually come to their own conclusion based on what they hear for themselves.
Kevin McCarthy wanted to put right wing conspiracy clowns on the Jan 6 committee in order to disrupt it and cause chaos. Pelosi did not want the hearings to become a travesty, so she rejected Jim Jordan. Simple as that.
No, no, and no.
Why do you bother to ask, you’ll just tell me what my position is no matter the response?
Really? You cannot tell from news coverage alone that Trump tried to steal the election? You were able to listen to the entire Raffensperger phone call. You watched Dusty Bowers testify under oath (and basically ruin his career) that Trump tried to get him to submit fake electors. You saw Trump repeatedly flat out lie about the 'rigged election' and influence his supporters (as PotUS) that the US electoral system disenfranchised them and that they must fight back. You saw 61 frivolous lawsuits (due to ridiculous and unevidenced claims). You saw his tweet throwing Pence under the bus during the insurrection. You know from Pence, et. al. that Trump tried to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act. You saw the insurrection continue for three hours before Trump finally stepped in to stop it and even then he praised the insurrectionists. You saw Trump never concede the election and continue, to this day, claiming he is the legitimate PotUS.
The 'more information' game is one of the most common Trump defenses.
You think that Trump may not have tried to steal the 2020 election?
The first answer can be easily justified. The second answer if fascinating. You claim that you do not think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. The last answer is even more amazing ... you do not think what Trump did was wrong.
By Jove, I think you did a bang-up job at summarizing my 3 "NO" answers.
Good job.
That is the most lame reason I have ever heard for not wanting to get to the truth. Disrupt and cause chaos? Were they afraid someone was going to come in with firecrackers? There are controls that would not allowed that to happen and only a certain amount of time people get to talk. Not having them there to present anything already made the commission a travesty before it ever started. Simple as that.
It's the difference between wanting to see the evidence and facts. Many (specifically the left) don't care about that. In their minds he's guilty. Of what, they don't have a clue but he's guilty.
It became a travesty the minute she started hand picking the "committee".
Guilt is determined by a court of law.
I asked about wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is something that can be decided by an individual. And yes, do so based on the evidence and logic.
Numerous people testified that Trump did nothing to stop or end the Jan 6 violence, even after it was crystal clear what was going on. He sat and watched it on television without any attempt whatsoever to end it.
That is the testimony of numerous White House insiders. If Trump feels they are lying about him he is free to make his case, either to the committee or in a media interview.
He has never addressed this matter.
What is this "other side" of the story you are trying to refer to?
I want to hear all sides, I don't know how else to say it that would make some people understand. If all the information came out for the American public to see many many more people may be happy to move on from Donald. By doing it the way they did they have made Donald look like a victim, something I assume was not their goal.
Call it a Trump defense if it makes you feel better. I call it withholding judgement until all the facts are in, something all Americans, including Donald, deserve.
So far, all we've heard are accusations lacking evidence.
So it's opinion. And exactly why should I follow in lockstep with your opinion?
Ah. There lies your problem. Investigation after investigation hasn't produced enough evidence to convince many people. And because they don't see things as the left does has caused them to set their hair on fire and lash out at anybody who questions it.
Your position is an example of why I wrote this article. You deny that Trump did any wrong. You deny that he tried to steal the 2020 election. Thus you are one of those who defend Trump and make his actions seem acceptable.
Yet you do not want Trump to be the nominee.
The other side is whatever the people that Nancy did not allow on the committee had to say.
As for Donald watching TV for a period of time before doing anything (eventually tweeting to be peaceful) that makes him an asshole, not necessarily guilty of trying to steal an election unless he thought 100 or so people in the capital could actually steal the election. Personally I don't think our democracy is as fragile as some have been saying lately.
Logic dictates that if I don't think he tried to steal the election, then I wouldn't think he should be disqualified from running again.
See how that would work?
It is funny that some people seem to just say you don't need all the information available, you should have enough to condemn the man. And don't question why anyone seems to be trying to withhold information they would just have no control over what was said.
Then you should be unable to opine on anything. The facts are never 'all in' and most events in life are not adjudicated.
What is most telling is that there is no denying that Trump was trying to remain as PotUS regardless of the legitimate election results. That is what is called 'stealing an election'. The facts supporting that obvious call have been available since Jan 7th, 2021.
How can you claim that there is no evidence of Trump's wrongdoing? Does it not bother you to make such a foolish claim?
You do not have enough evidence to see that Trump attempted, with lies, coercion, fabrication of votes, denial of votes, etc. to stay in office after losing the election?
Nancy picked 2 Republicans and 7 Democrats...
mmmm..imagine that.
You asked my opinion. If you don't like it, tough.
I didn't deny he did wrong, you asked if I thought he did wrong.
Like has been stated here, if you are going to tell me my position, why bother asking or even being here? You can simply say I do this or think that and argue yourself.
I'll not waste another minute on trying to explain myself to you because it simply doesn't matter-- you have your preconceived notions and nothing can seem to deter you from them, not even facts.
Have fun debating both sides.
Logic dictates that if you do not want to see Trump get the nomination that you would not pretend that he did not steal the election.
What facts do you have that shows Trump did not try to steal the 2020 election?
I'll not waste another minute on trying to explain myself to you because it simply doesn't matter-- you have your preconceived notions and nothing can seem to deter you from them, not even facts.
Have fun debating both sides.
Explain the difference. If you say that he did not do wrong then how is that different from denying he did wrong?
[✘]
[✘]
change "all the facts" to "all the facts I think are needed" if it makes more sense to you, I didn't think I would be taken quite so literally.
Trump was trying to remain the president. As I recall Donald was questioning the results of certain areas, something that he has the right to do. As I recall Al gore did something very similar. And after all his avenues were explored and shot down the right person was made president. That in and of itself is not attempting to steal an election.
So you think any criticism of donald should all lie on one committee?
What information has been withheld?
He was telling Pence to not certify the election. The people attacked the capitol to stop the transfer of power.
Hell we have trumpers in Arizona right now crying it is all fraud and withholding certification. Even one newly elected person said they would not even vote on anything unless they redo the whole election (I say go for it as it diminishes republican votes in the state).
If you think they can't or won't end up trying, that is not paying attention to what some people are actually trying to do.
They are following trump's playbook.
Yea, two republicans that hated Donald so much they were willing to give up their career and go to MSNBC to work (probably) and then they kept touting bipartisan.
I guess we will see how may Dems are put on these newly to be formed investigations.
I guess we will...since no Dems bitched about Nancy's picks, I guess they won't care about Repubs either.
So you are complaining about it yet at the same time giving it a green light...
Why?
You'll just end up telling me what "I really meant" anyways.
Let's skip all that and you just start debating whatever it is you are going to assign to me.
How long until it does not fail? Do you think they are going to stop?
Again, what was withheld?
Where is the complaint? Are you denying the facts?
Did Nancy's partisan committee bother you? Where is your complaint?
If you could actually give a straight answer maybe there wouldn't be problems with perception...
If Trump had limited himself to what Gore did then I would not deem that trying to steal the election. Gore stuck with legal challenges and then, when legal avenues were exhausted, he conceded the election.
Trump, however, went so far beyond that it is incredible that anyone cannot see it (and I do not buy that anyone cannot see it).
For example, do you not see the problem with suborning your V.P. to table certified votes so that Trump could win by plurality? Do you see nothing wrong with his attempt to coerce Raffensperger to "find votes" or coerce Dusty Baker to submit alternate electors favorable to Trump? Do you see nothing wrong with abusing the influence of the presidency to convince your supporters (through blatant lies) that they were disenfranchised and that the US electoral system is corrupt?
Trump did not stop at normal legal challenges. He wrote an entirely new script for election denial. This "waiting for all the facts I think are needed" is an example of running interference for Trump. It is exactly the foot-shooting this article talks about.
Stated differently, if someone does not acknowledge with current available information that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election, I submit they will never acknowledge this fact.
Were you not the one complaining about Nancy's picks? Are you denying that you brought that up as some kind of point?
You are blaming all on one side what both sides do.
What are you afraid of? You spend time writing pure snark posts that run away from my challenges and questions.
If you cannot deal with a challenge then don't reply.
If our system is robust enough it will always fail. Maybe we should shore up our election system so it is even more robust.
Again, how would we know what was withheld if it was withheld? That is why it should have been transparent and Nancy should not have gone against norms by not allowing the republicans to choose who should be on what committee. Based on what may happen when republicans take control of the house I wonder if it was worth it to her.
You would be wrong
No, you are confused.
No. Are you confused again?
What would that be?
If you have a problem with perception, I am sure someone here could help you out.
You have obviously (deliberately?) missed my point.
if "No, no, and no" is somehow not straight enough for you, what on earth IS?
I could be wrong about some details, but there is no chance that I am wrong about the big picture fact that Trump tried to steal the election.
So you are just speculating that there is more information and blaming Pelosi on some kind of coverup...
So you will not even acknowledge your own posts.
How in the world is this confusion? Yes you brought this up.
Where is your complaint about the partisan committee?
Why did you bring it up?
Can you not read today?..
I didn't bring it up, you did. Holy hell.
Do you actually believe more would not have been brought to light if there were others on the committee? Do you actually believe Nancy didn't have a reason other than chaos for changing the rules even though she had to know Republicans would eventually take the house and do the same thing?
Certainly not you.
Let's see if that holds any water:
You at post 11.2.6
Lo and behold, my reply at 11.2.9
Sorry, claiming I ran is rather ludicrous, even by the standards set here.
Is the above not your comment?
I didn't bring up Republican's picks.
Geez...you are complaining about something that hasn't even happened.
Holy hell is right.
What chaos? What do you think would be brought to light?
The committee actually didn't show much that we already didn't know.
As far as the republicans they could have easily nominated several people that were not trump loyalists yet they insisted that their own picks be used and if not they would not nominate anyone else.
Is that in good faith?
Jesus Christ. You brought up people being denied a committee assignment. I queried that the republicans are poised to do the same thing.
Then you act like you did not initiate any of this.
For Pete's Sake, you call stating facts a complaint but refuse to acknowledge that your hair on fire comment is not.
Sheez.
People are not innocent or guilty of something based on whether or not they "succeeded".
Go try and rob a bank and fail and see if they let you go after you get caught.
Trump approved and promoted a plan based on Pence not counting the electoral votes from the swing states Biden won on the ruse that they were "in dispute". They were not "in dispute", they were all certified by the states.
In the plan Trump approved the preferred outcome was that once the electoral votes from the swing states were not counted, the remaining totals would make Trump president. Trump was told this plan was illegal but he continued to urge Pence up until the last second. He is a traitor.
What hair on fire comment?
You made a statement and I responded and you come back with nothing but accusations.
Are the republicans going to do what the dems did? Answer is probably yes.
You are eager to accuse one side while turning a blind eye to the other.
I agree he tried to look at many options to try and remain president, some of them were questionable from an ethical standpoint.. You want to call it trying to steal and that is fine, to me that is semantics. I consider stealing as having a legal component so for me stealing would include doing something illegal. As of yet he has not been charged with doing anything illegal, if that changes then I will agree he is being accused of stealing the election.
Calm down...nothing has even happened yet.
Facts are not accusations....at least to those who are rational.
Please give an explanation of how not counting some electoral votes in 'swing' states results in Trump reaching 270 electoral votes necessary to actually win.
This might be interesting.
None of your posts have been rational. I can face reality, unlike some who deny they even made a comment, then accuse others of making shit up.
You made the comment in order to say the committee was jaded. We all know it, only you want to deny.
Yet, it was highly illegal when Trump conspired with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to enact a violent insurrection to stop Congress from their Constitutional duty to certify Biden's electoral win on January 6th, 2021. He, and they, succeeded in forcing a long delay while Congress was forced into bunkers until peace was restored. We all know this because we all witnessed it!
Trump was doing things that were not good or ethical. Is what he did illegal? Time will tell.
How soon people seem to forget that people trying to remain president even though they were not voted in is nothing new. Remember 2016 petition on change.org that stated
"Donald Trump has not been elected president. The real election takes place December 19, when the 538 Electoral College Electors cast their ballots – for anyone they want.
If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, in 14 of the states in Trump's column, they can vote for Hillary Clinton without any legal penalty if they choose.
That petition had 4,881,249 supporters, Hilary's camp and general media support. Where was the outrage?
I missed it, do you have film of the meeting they were in to conspire that you seem to have seen? And since you say it was illegal throw in the actual charges while you are at it.
Thanks
For goodness sake, get a grip. You will be ok..and nothing but facts was stated by me unlike your wild accusations about something that hasn't even happened.
Dems set the bar low. You seem to approve. I haven't heard any complaining from you.
Isn't it a little strange to you that almost two years later, no charges have been filed against Trump for that which you claim?
Funny how a matter of hours is a long delay to you but a year and a half of inflation is 'temporary'!
Haha. I guess the 'imagine that' was not some kind of quip.
Again, we all knew what you were getting at.
I approve of what? That the republicans would only seat trump loyalists and said they would not vote for anyone else and walked away from the table?
No, it is not strange at all. This nation has never prosecuted any former Presidents for their crimes they were implicated in while serving as President. It would be a huge breach of historical precedent to do so, but in Trump's case it is absolutely necessary!
Approve of Republicans doing the same thing. Denying Democrats their picks, that should be swell by your standards.
So why are your bitching about something that hasn't even happened anyways?
Absolutely necessary, you claim, but here we are, still waiting for Democrats to DO SOMETHING. Why do you insist on continuing support for people you personally find lacking? That seems senseless.
Please don't preach about precedent, Democrats had no qualms about precedents in impeaching Trump twice.
Let them play their partisan games. Unlike some, I am sick of all of them doing it. Both sides are only for party over country.
I can recognize that. I can see that. They all play these stupid games and it will continue as you and I sit here and argue over dumb bullshit.
I can say that yes, the committee is bias just like I can almost say for certain any future ones seem to be on the same trajectory.
They are all to appease their base and nothing more.
What has investigating trump accomplished? I can hear your answer now. But I will turn it around and I can probably guess with near certainty the answer will be reversed. What is investigating Hunter going to do or prove or change....
It is all more of the same dumb shit that started back with the republicans continued investigations during Obama's term.
Amazingly, we agree.
I agree totally but I would expect some here may accuse you of bothsidesism
I think my card was revoked a while back...
What else would you call it when a PotUS attempts to dishonestly change the results of an election he lost? Give me a word.
Win
... that definition is exclusive to trumpsters.
Dems took it to a new level. Two failed impeachments on manufactured charges. Failed Mueller investigation, failed Jan 6 th hearings (productions) Constant FBI raids. Denying committee positions. Endless leaking.
Like I said, they set the bar low. If you didn’t complain about the Dems, people can keep their complaints about the Republicans doing the same to themselves.
Speaking of Obama, I wonder what Lois Lerner is up to? Probably got a promotion for pleading the 5th.
Have a good evening.
Oh come on, if Trump had successfully but dishonestly changed (aka cheating) the results of the election (i.e. disenfranchised the electorate) you would simply call that a "win" unqualified ... like any other legitimate "win"?
If a sports team wins a game by cheating, do you simply call that a "win" like any other win?
Give me a break.
Nope
You asked a question and I answered it. Not my problem if you don't like it.
That is a wimpy dodge of my follow up question.
It's easy. I think about my statement, realize NOBODY has provided an official record, just links to the untrustorthy media, then I type my statement. If you have all these official records then lets see them. Feel free to provide the links to each PDF.
You mean like the Democrats did after the 2016 election?
[deleted]
You determine wrongdoing of Biden on a daily basis. You do not require a trial to do so. But for Trump, you cannot bring yourself to even acknowledge his wrongdoing (not guilt, wrongdoing) with his Big Lie campaign or the taking of TS/SCI documents and compromising national security.
Your method is pure bias.
Trump has announced his candidacy. Do you want to see him as the GoP nominee?
If you have all these official records then lets see them. Feel free to provide the links to each PDF.
You determine wrongdoing of Biden on a daily basis without "all these official records".
Your method is pure bias.
Trump has announced his candidacy. Do you want to see him as the GoP nominee?
[deleted]
So you are going to talk in circles. Send me a DM when you find those documents that back up your claims then we'll talk.
You can not give a shit about whatever you want. [deleted]
The evidence against Trump does not come from the media, it comes from testimony by people involved, most of it on video.
Maybe you can bullshit or stonewall other people, but a bunch of us here see right through your nonsense.
Jeremy, everyone can see that you are running away from a direct challenge and running away from a direct, valid, topical question.
If you cannot determine wrongdoing by Trump without "all these official records" then you cannot determine wrongdoing by Biden. Your method is based on pure bias; your method is ridiculous.
One last time: Trump has announced his candidacy. Do you want to see him as the GoP nominee?
And yet you're still responding to me.
Again, when did I say I gave a shit what you had to say?
Then provide the links to the PDFs. TiG can't seem to find them.
Okay Jeremy, time to make a thoughtful comment or leave.
After reading your comment I don't feel the need or desire to try and defend or further explain my answer. Take it as is or don't take it as is, I really don't care.
Consider this giving you a break.
PS as long as you want to play this game I am still waiting for a response to a question I asked in 11.2.5 that you ignored altogether. So forgive me for not wanting to play your little misconstruing or circular logic games.
[✘]
You must be referring to this:
I think that most people (in the electorate) want a fair and bipartisan investigation. In fact, I suspect most want these issues to be addressed in a fair trial.
Now, you objected to my use of "steal" when I noted that Trump tried to steal the election. I asked you what word you think is more appropriate and you come back with "win".
So, naturally, I asked you the obvious follow up questions:
Is that how you operate? If someone can win by cheating that is okay by you? A dishonest win is as good as a legitimate win?
If so, who could possibly take your comments seriously.
Is that how you operate? No
If someone can win by cheating that is okay by you? Never said that
A dishonest win is as good as a legitimate win? Never said that
If so, who could possibly take your comments seriously. Anyone that doesn't make up their own answers and draw incorrect conclusion
If " most people (in the electorate) want a fair and bipartisan investigation" why are so few people on the left speaking out against the commission. And please don't say it is a bipartisan commission, that is just an insult to anyone with half a brain.
I did answer your question. I started my comment quoting it and then answered it.
You equated stealing an election to winning. Now you equivocate.
Winning an election can be done legitimately or illegitimately. Did Trump try to illegitimately win the election?
Probably because those on the left are NOT predisposed to defending Trump. Seems like the obvious answer.
I suspect that if a lopsided commission ensues to investigate Hunter Biden, those on the right will not complain that it is not truly bipartisan.
Did Trump try to illegitimately win the election?
what could possibly be gained towards getting justice by having some of those involved in the attempted election robbery sitting on the jury?
It sounds like both sides are more interested in winning than actually finding the truth. I will withhold judgement in all the cases until I am satisfied a fair investigation is done. Until then I will consider the investigation is nothing more than propaganda. I will say the same thing with any investigation that starts next year.
That is just bullshit.
You opine all the time without the benefit of a "fair investigation". And I am not asking you to opine on a legal question. I have asked you about your position on something that we all witnessed clear as day yet you cannot even acknowledge that Trump tried to steal the election. Instead you play word games and say he tried to "win" and refuse to acknowledge that he tried to "win" illegitimately.
You opine all the time in this forum without the benefit of a "fair investigation".
In short, you refuse to acknowledge even the most obvious wrongdoing by Trump. Don't feed me (us) the bullshit line that you are just trying to be fair. That insults the intelligence of everyone on this forum.
I will tell you whatever I want. I will not be bullied into making a statement just to make you happy or satisfied. Believe it or don't believe it, I really don't care. I will waste no more time on you.
You play transparent games refusing to even acknowledge that Trump tried to steal (aka "win" illegitimately) the presidency and when you run out of deflection ideas cry "bully"?
Much appreciated; I wish you had made that call 5 posts ago.
more like when the decision was being made whether or not to join this site...
Not any more than Hillary tried to steal the 2016 election.
It is thinking like that which keeps Trump relevant. GoP members who speak like this to others enable Trump to potentially secure the nomination through a plurality. If Trump is the GoP nominee the GoP will almost certainly lose the presidential election.
You are shooting your own foot.
I just, again, summarized this article.
Like what? Give you an accurate but of history that looks poorly on your queen?
No I am not. Those elections are not for another year and a half to two years away. We don't even know who is going to be running at that time. I will wait until then. I will probably vote for someone other thant Trump in the primary just like I did the last two presidential primaries. If Trump takes the primary and Biden or Clinton (she has made noises about making another run) or some other dolt like them I will again vote for Trump. I won't necessarily like it but I will. Frankly I don't see any Democrat right now that is worthy of my vote.
Making excuses for Trump.
You seem uncapable of comprehending that I have never and never will support Hillary. Attempt to understand what I have repeatedly stated to you in this forum.
And defend Trump and contribute to him staying relevant.
If you would not vote for Trump then why do you defend him? It is irrational to run interference against wrongdoing by someone who you would not want to see as the GoP nominee.
A smarter move is to work to ensure that Trump is NOT the nominee so that you can vote for someone who has a good chance to win.
"Is it your position that Trump has an insignificant amount of people defending / supporting / excusing him?"
Yes. And a year or two from now it will be even less.
Please provide credible evidence indicating otherwise.
It should be less. Will it be small enough to ensure Trump does not get the nomination? Why take the chance? Trump is of no use to the GoP. He remains a parasite. To what end does the GoP continue to allow Trump to feed off of it?
LOL. You make a claim and now want me to deliver evidence of a counter to your claim? That's not how logic works Greg. You provide evidence to back up your claim.
My claim is that if Trump secures a plurality, he can be the GoP nominee and that if he is the GoP nominee the D party will most likely win the presidency. This is pure logic based on the rules of nomination and the polls which suggest Trump will fail in the general. For example:
Trump disapproval is approaching 55%:
Perfect seed/article to showcase the political tribalism
and short memory syndrome of everyday Americans.
Iran Contra investigations?
10 Benghazi investigations.
The Church Committee?
Watergate investigations?
Hurricane Katrina?
The impeachments of Bill Clinton and DJ Trump
HRClintons emails on a phone & server in a bathroom.
The January 06 investigation of the big lie and Capital riots is about to end.
Not to worry, the incoming House leadership promises to investigate the Jan 06 investigation
Can't Make This Shit Up
We have met the enemy and he is us...
I look at MSN a lot of times to see a variety. I sometimes read the comments on there to see what people are saying.
Contrary to what some are saying, there is still a large contingent of people that back trump.
Yep. They show a variety, including right wing sights...
The comments from the left here are very telling. Since they are so comfortable telling others what their comments mean, let me tell them what they are saying loud and clear.
Please nominate someone that can save us from the complete fucking moron we elected. 4 more years of this senile old fool and we will be forced to admit what a complete fuck up he is also.
Do you think it would be good or bad for the GoP if Trump becomes its nominee?
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
Not having skin in the game I don't really care, but if he isn't the candidate, Democrats will lose to Desantis.
The real issue is Democrats don't have a candidate right now, nor will they in 2024. We all remember that sad debate stage. It was truly an embarrassing moment for any intellectual liberal. The only intelligent one had already picked a fight with Hillary and as a result was marked for failure. She also kneecapped Kamala's presidential campaign and by the looks of her polling with Black voters, she hasn't recovered.
Why would we stop Donald? We shouldn't want to unless liberal candidates are as sad as they were in 2020. Surely we can find someone intelligent and articulate like Obama. He was perfect until he took office and frankly he became hard to differentiate from the Bush before him. Such disappointment really.
But even if you are hard-core D you have skin in the game. If Trump is the GoP nominee, the D party will likely win the presidency. You would then want the GoP to keep defending and excusing Trump ... to even prop him up.
If you are literally an independent then you have the same skin in the game that I do. I will not vote for Biden. So if he runs, I have no D choice to consider. If the GoP allows Trump to eek by with a plurality of votes and become the nominee, I have no R choice to consider.
I want, for a change, the ability to seriously consider two decent candidates for PotUS. Signs suggest we could see another Biden vs. Trump and that would be a disaster for this nation.
Trump needs more defending. Yesterday two candidates that he supported lost in Alaska. Lisa Mukowski (R) retained her senate seat and Mary Peltola (D) retained her house seat against Trump back candidates.
Murkowski by less than 1,700 votes which she probably picked up in the ranked voting system and Peltola instead of a straight on Palin -v- Peltola, also because of the ranked voting system in the primaries, the republicans split their vote between Palin and the other "R", if that hadn't happened Palin wins. Trump had nothing to do with that, it was the messed up ranked voting system.
You are wrong with that statement. The ranked voting system doesn't go into effect until Wednesday the 23rd if no one gets 50% of the vote. They have won it outright and the lead will probably increase if it goes to the ranked voting system.
BTW, the Alaskan people chose the ranked voting system so I doubt if they care what you think of it.
Trump attacked Murkowski on a regular basis there is numerous articles on it and he supported Palin so yeah he was part of the problem.
In the Alaska race there were 2 Republican candidates and one Republican. McConnell only funded Murkowski. Add to that the democrats who voted for their candidate and selected Murkowski as their second choice.
That is the prime example of why rank choice voting is INSANE!
In your opinion which means nothing in Alaska.
What happened to Trump's promise to campaign in Alaska against Murkowski? Another bullshit lie.
Three Republicans?
C'mon man!
Did he not endorse Kelly Tshibaka?
The people voted in a ridiculous voting system and I say Mitch tipped the scales.
Yes, did he campaign for her in Alaska or against Murkowski? NO, he didn't more BS from Trump.
I'm sure that you do, but the fact of the matter is both of them lost and just to add a little salt to that Representative Young (R) who served for 49 years in the house of representatives wanted an indigenous woman to succeed him and his whole family including his daughters campaigned for Peltola (D).
So in other words you demand that Trump and ONLY TRUMP does exactly as he says.
but the fact of the matter is both of them lost
Who is both?
Representative Young (R) who served for 49 years in the house of representatives wanted an indigenous woman to succeed him and his whole family including his daughters campaigned for Peltola (D).
That does happen. There is a democrat who represents a district in south Texas than many Republicans would endorse.
Only pointing out a fact, something that you seem to not want to hear.
It's in my comments but in case you forgot it's Palin and Tshibaka.
Probably, but it's about Alaska not Texas.
Your gal Mayra Flores got an asswhoopin!
PolitiFact | Texas Democrats shut out of statewide office longer than Democrats in other states
And now you can add 10 more years to that record streak!
In any case, her defeat can not possibly be as embarrassing as the Democratic campaign chief losing his 5-time held seat to a Republican in New York!
LMAO!
Another story about forgetting about Trump - instead of watching the natural wither, even with the evidence of endorsement failures. The left is hanging by their thumbs to hear, "Yea, I paid too much for that house."
Do you think it is good for the GoP to have Trump within reach of the nomination?
[✘]
[✘]
I have to say it is kinda obvious. With all the complaining I would have to say yes, they still support trump.
The MAGA's message comes in loud and clear!
That is what most of the comments sound like.
blind party loyalty dominates logic and reason in that age demographic...
Should Democrats be donating to Trump 2024?
Fools and their money are soon parted.
No wonder MAGA send all theirs to Trump!
[removed]
Seriously? If the Ds donate money to Trump's primary run they are helping their candidate win in the general.
Do you not see that?
Yes, thanks for asking.
Perhaps, if one merely assumes without facts that if they donate to Trump, he wins the Republican nomination, and whoever the Democrats nominate wins.
Not being like Nostradamus myself, I can only rely on what occurs, not what I can envision.
I have longed for the ability to foretell the future, but so far I haven't received that ability as of yet.
No, the assumption is that if one donates money to a politician's campaign they are helping said politician achieve his/her goal of getting elected.
One does not need prognostication powers to see that simple cause and effect.
only if they think they can tip the scales to a desired outcome , that was tried whith cheney in the primaries ...oh well.
yes im back humungus cow elk down on the 11th . and a couple decent sized white tail does to finish filling the freezer , currently making sausage and jerky in small batches( pound at a time ) trying different recipes .
Off topic but I once had chili made with elk. It was delicious
elk burger in spaghetti sauce is really good too. elk versus beef is a no brainer.
sounds good
leaner , healthier, no hormones , and i can choose between antelope , deer or elk ..... have all 3 .
While i still struggle to understand the affection the Moral minority has with the Donald, I do believe the electorate has had enough of endless Trump investigations. I fear the most reason appointment will rally the disenfranchised Walmart voters in this country and put him in the White House. Seriously the Media looks so childish after the Russian Collusion disaster. Martyring the Donald will only make his fat as grow fatter.
Possibly true, but this comment says nothing about this article other than talking about Trump.
This article is not about prosecuting Trump but rather supporting / defending / excusing him by supporters and others. It is about how the GoP is shooting itself in the foot by trying to smooth out Trump's Big Lie, etc.
In short: the posit is that if Trump gets the GoP nomination, the GoP will almost certainly lose the general election. Not detaching from Trump is a mistake that is compounded by the ongoing absurd denial and running interference so many GoP'rs are engaged in.
The internet will probably be our collective downfall.
A poll in Germany found that a majority thought the USA goaded Russia into attacking Ukraine.
I think that's
but they heard it on the internet...
Likewise in this country of freedom of speech, we are bombarded with competing tribal news
sources. Ironically, the same people who mock "woke" feelings are convinced the voting system
is broken because they "know it" without any proof despite dozens of investigations of the same
states multiple times.
Josef Gobels helped convince the German people to commit war crimes and other atrocities
by repeating the same bs over and over.
In spite of all of the education improvements since then,
things just haven't changed much. Just the names are different.
Given the discourse has gone south, I am locking this article until I can return tomorrow.