Whopping 64% of Americans Say They 'Definitely' Or 'Probably' Would NOT Support Trump For President in 2024: AP Poll
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Alex Griffing Aug 16th, 2023
A new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll out Wednesday found that former President Donald Trump is increasing his grip on the Republican Party but still distancing a majority of the American electorate.
The poll found that 63% of Republican voters "now say they want the former president to run again," noted an AP summary. The strong support from inside the GOP marked an increase from the same poll last April, which showed 55% of Republican voters wanted to see Trump on the party's ticket again.
"Seven in 10 Republicans now have a favorable opinion of Trump, an uptick from the 60% who said so two months ago," added the AP of Trump's increasing popularity in the GOP as more indictments have been filed against him.
While Trump's grip on the Republican Party is undisputable in the poll's findings, his relationship with the general electorate is far less favorable.
"But in a crucial warning sign for the former president and his supporters, Trump faces glaring vulnerabilities heading into a general election, with many Americans strongly dug in against him," wrote the AP's Jill Colvin and Linley Sanders.
The poll found that in a general election, 74% of Republicans said they would support Trump in 2024. However, 53% of Americans said they "definitely" would not support him and another 11% said they "probably" would not support him.
The poll asked the same questions for President Joe Biden and found a slightly better result for the incumbent, but not by much. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would not support Biden, with 43% saying "they would definitely not support him in a general election, with another 11% saying they probably wouldn't." While an improvement on Trump's total 64% percent of Americans not wanting to support him, Biden's 54% shows he remains vulnerable.
Biden does command greater party loyalty than Trump, however, with 82% of Democrats saying they will support him in a general election. The poll also asked respondents whether or not they believed Biden to be a legitimately elected president. Seventy percent of all Americans surveyed agreed, with 98% of Democrats agreeing, but only 41% of Republicans vouched for Biden's legitimacy.
When asked about Trump's most recent federal indictment, 53% of Americans said they "approve of the Justice Department indicting Trump in the federal case that he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. As with most opinions concerning Trump, there are large partisan differences. Only 16% of Republicans approve of the Justice Department's indictment, compared to 85% of Democrats."
The poll was conducted nationally between August 10th and 14th among 1,165 adults using online and telephone interviews. The poll carries a 3.8% margin of error.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Filed Under: 2024 ElectionDonald TrumpJoe BidenRepublican Party Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post Alex Griffing - Senior Editor
Alex Griffing is a Senior Editor at Mediaite. Send tips via email: alexanderg@mediaite.com. Follow him on Twitter: @alexgriffing
More Stories by Alex Griffing Load Comments
Tags
Who is online
29 visitors
Independent voters abandoning Trump for 2024!
Biden will win a rematch by twenty million votes...
This is what I would expect. If someone is an independent voter and truly does not just go with the flow of a single party then I would expect that individual to NOT vote for a traitor who attempted to steal a US presidential election (among many other bad acts).
At the very least, Biden could do the nation a great service by securing a V.P. who could easily step in as PotUS ... such as governor Tim Walz. There are plenty of competent, grounded, experienced Ds who could give comfort to the nation given the historic inevitability of electing an 82 year old as PotUS.
Please...anybody but Kamala Harris
I wonder if the Ds understand that many independents and even R voters are looking for a way to stop Trump. Right now they see only Biden who would start his next term at 82. (The presidency is too important and too stressful for an octogenarian. I know Biden is in good shape but that could change literally in a heartbeat.) This makes the choice for V.P. absolutely critical. If Biden were to move to a solid individual as V.P. many could more easily vote for Biden because they would be voting for the V.P. as the potential PotUS.
That is why I offer names like Tim Walz. I would have no reservation voting for Biden / Walz to stop Trump. In addition, we would have a competent, experienced, youthful, moderate V.P. who could be a fine advisor and sounding board for Biden.
Probably not.
The populist left would have a coronary! Those Bernie Bros are still sore about the 2016 election and the implications of dropping a woman of color to the Progressives would damage the Biden brand. The only way it happens is if Harris were to personally drop out and there was nothing to leak out about it NOT being her choice. Even then the Progressives would be looking for 'diversity' in the pick.
I like both Walz and Klobuchar as picks.
This is a very confusing article to read.
Should I be glad that 64% have seen the light on supporting a conman? Or should I be outraged that only 64% won't support a conman?
so somewhere around 30+% of voters are supporters of a racist autocratic criminal? how comforting...
And 54% of voters said they would not vote for Biden.
... and 1/3 of those voters probably won't be judged mentally competent before election day and will sign any completed ballot their sane kids put in front of them...
[Deleted]
And Trump will contest reality yet again.
We're still six months from the primaries, lots of unexpected events can change poll numbers almost overnight.
If Trump gets tied up in court, who knows now who will end up as the Republican nominee?
And there is no guarantee that Biden can survive another campaign, let alone another full term.
‘Bidenomics’ has failed both as a policy and as a slogan | The Hill
Pardon me if I don't subscribe to your propaganda, Greg. The linked article is an opinion piece from Chris Talgo at The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a conservative policy think tank known for its rejection of both climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking. While I hate the term Bidenomics the economy is better today than it was when Biden entered office. The new jobs and wage reports are good. Wages are growing faster than inflation, which might worry the Feds, but certainly helps incumbents in their reelection campaigns. Job growth is robust and continues to defy the economists that said inflation would only slow if jobs were cut.
Wrong again. A large percentage of Americans are barely making ends meet and nothing is getting any cheaper.
You can keep putting lipstick on this pig of an economy, but ever-increasing numbers of the people, especially the poor and the middle class, isn't buying the BS
Economies are evaluated quantitatively and in comparison to other economies:
.
This is not a bad economy. Take off your partisan blinders.
Bidenomics is the greatest thing since sliced bread don't ya know?
That is why they want to forgive millions and millions in debt in this ROBUST economy and why people are borrowing more than ever before. Credit card debt has reached new highs and the problem will only be compounded by the higher interest rates.
Yeah... that's why spending is still high.
You mean most of where the Dem polling numbers come from?
Doesn't exactly explain away the record credit card debt being currently held now does it?
As I've said many, many time. There isn't much a President or Administration can do to effect markets. The pandemic that closed markets was an anomaly and had global impact. Neither Trump nor Biden has had much influence in foreign markets. We are seeing much the same in Europe and the UK as we are seeing here.
I just tire of people cheerleading for Bidenomics in one breath and then telling us college-educated people are too hard-pressed to pay their bills. I am tired of the "temporary" inflation going on for well over 2 years now.
Is that Biden's fault? Or is that the borrower's fault?
Thank God I was able to pay mine off with a home equity loan. Bought the townhome in '21 and it has gained 54% in value from my purchase price. I signed the purchase agreement in December of '20 when my landlord was wanting to dump it so he and his wife could purchase a new home for themselves without the burden of owning rental property. At the time it appraised for 13% more than the negotiated price and he paid the closing costs.
No it is not. It is not even really a thing. It is a political label.
The current economy is not great, but it is by any rational standard not bad.
Did you read that somewhere--because it wasn't in my post.
I have been around a while. Voters tend to hold the man in charge responsible for their own economics. Perhaps you have heard of this phenomena.
Gee, I am so damn sorry I didn't put a sarcasm tag on that line, I knew someone wouldn't be able to see it.
No kidding. Kind of my point. But lots of Bidenistas beg to differ.
Yes they do. They credit or blame the current PotUS. And that is usually mostly wrong. Do you understand that too?
Cool!
I retire in two years and just hoping to be able to sell my house quickly once we decide where to go. My house cost me $160k in 2007, tax appraisal came in this year at $289,774. House across the street sold last month for over $350k but it is about 200 square foot bigger. Texas just passed a new law where the homestead exemption will go from $50k to $100k, so we get a break there!
Exactly what I stated.
That would be 2 different conversations on very complex issues. Though 'Bidenomics' is a partisan red flag for me. Tuition payoffs were a campaign promise to Progressives. Biden is courting young progressive voters the same way any candidate courts party voters... The people claiming it's necessary are looking for short cuts - not fixes.
All those pandemic checks sent out by Trump, Biden and Congress had an effect. It will take years to correct, but doing it faster requires more economic pain. It's either slow and steady as the Feds have been OR it's high unemployment and a recession.
A misguided attempt to buy votes.
I'm not going to argue that. It is. I'll also point out how tax cuts are pretty much the same for Republicans.
Then you would be wrong.
Yet again you engage in intellectual dishonesty by truncating my statement to change the meaning.
You cut off the balance of my sentence:
You need some new lines.
You said the economy was not great.
I agreed.
I didn't say anything about standards so I am not beholden to your entire comment.
Does it change the economy which you specifically said was not great?
You chopped off half of my sentence. The sentence represents a complete thought. In this case, it was comparative. Showing only the first part misrepresented my point.
Intellectual dishonesty.
Not according to non-politically affiliated economists.
Either you think and wrote the economy is not great or you didn't.
Looks to me you did.
I don't even have any idea what you are attempting to argue when I already agreed the economy isn't great.
So just stop, no one will mind.
Texan, I truly doubt anyone is buying your obtuseness bullshit.
We all know that a sentence represents a single, unified thought. This is how natural language works. So if you quote only part of a sentence to reframe it under a different context, you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
It is okay to quote part of a sentence if you do not distort the meaning of the sentence.
My point, of course, is that this is not a bad economy.
Too bad that people cannot just communicate without intellectually dishonest agents cherry-picking by quoting parts of sentences in an attempt to twist other's meaning.
How pathetic.
That isn't what you wrote at all in the post I responded to. You wrote the economy wasn't great.
But. I got your damn point the FIRST time you wrote it.
In fact, I agreed with you--the economy is not great.
Now that we agree the economy is not great, what will you argue?
Calling my comments intellectually dishonest shows a rather amazing amount of hypocrisy.
Part of this thread removed for no value.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Who's fault is the student debt? Is Biden going to forgive the credit card debt too?
I think we can all agree that it is the borrowers fault, not Biden's nor anyone else's. We just need to remember that when politicians wish to saddle taxpayers with other people's debt of any kind.
Perhaps, although most tax cuts are across the board (to the extent that taxes are paid by folks in the first place) and put money back in most people's pockets rather than taking money from them to pay the personal debts of others. Having said that, it would be nice to see such tax cuts accompanied by a reduction in spending so as not to expand the deficits / national debt from time to time.
So rally about a suitable nominee NOW. It is not too late. The GOP should have kicked Trump aside on Jan 20, 2021 yet they just cannot seem to get their collective act together.
Criticizing Biden is not going to help the GOP. The GOP needs to clean up its house or Biden (or virtually any other D) will indeed win the presidency.
( I hold 0% hope that the GOP will be successful given its progress thus far. )
There - fixed that for ya!
I agree, but on Jan 20, 2021 they had full knowledge of just how far Trump would go. And, at that point he was out of power. A perfect time to detach from a demonstrable parasite who would do nothing but continue to poison the GOP.
True dat. Although some of us saw the need for the prophylaxis before he was nominated.
So we have the possible choices of a turd and shit sandwich...
Which one has bar b q sauce?
Condiments are the feaster's prerogative. LOL
I think one comes with tartar and the other with cocktail sauce.
Do you kiss your mother with that ignorant mouth?
Well I am trying to cut carbs.... can we go with a lettuce wrap?
Trump only got into this race with hopes of winning and pardoning himself. The four indictments were of no surprise to anyone. His support will only continue to go negative. At this point his best hope would be to die in his sleep.
And the GOP will almost certainly wind up nominating a traitor — the only PotUS in our history who tried to steal a US presidential election.
I was relieved to see actions finally start to hold Trump accountable. I was not confident that justice would prevail and I am still not confident that our system will find Trump guilty (in spite of the odds ... in normal circumstances).
It just takes one MAGA juror and we see every day how individuals can operate in an alternate reality when partisan politics are involved.
That might impress a first-year law student, but it doesn't impress me. A critical thinker would look at the big picture which takes in all the things that happened well before Jan 6th. The DOJ & FBI have engaged in malfeasance and that nullifies all of these staged trials conspicuously coinciding with an election. Doesn't it ever occur to you how obvious all of this is? I think even Lavrentiy Beria would be ashamed to put on such a show.
Indeed.
A partisan would look at reality and distort it into a partisan alternate reality.
I read the indictments and have paid close attention to the details that have emerged since Jan 6th. I am going by the closest we have to facts. I do not engage in conspiracy theories. What you have illustrated is that you presume conspiracy and then base your conclusions on that presumption.
That is NOT critical thinking Vic ... it is the opposite.
I'm really disappointed. I thought you had an argument.
An argument for what? You illustrated that you operate on conspiracy theory and that determines how you interpret news.
Your notion that the DOJ and FBI are hopelessly corrupt is a wildly exaggerated view of reality. One can point out how irrational extreme views like that are, but I doubt anyone can formulate an 'argument' to disabuse you of that extreme, irrational view.
Here is my hypothesis. I suspect that you have realized that DeSantis will not be an option and that you will be 'forced' to vote for Trump. I am interpreting your posts now under that framework.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
The facts say otherwise.
Let us begin here:
Did they lie on a FISA application???
Did anyone do time for it?
All that occurs to me is modern republicans, a shameless bunch, relying on democrats to do their dirty work for them all the while medaling each other for their collective cowardness.
I will state this one last time.
I do not hold that our government —and that includes the FBI and DOJ— are without corruption.
So when you continue to try to argue that corruption exists, note that you are wasting your time.
I do not, however, buy into your extreme, irrational view that we should downplay (or maybe entirely disregard) the indictments of Trump because the agents of government are so corrupt that everything they do is wrong.
That, Vic, I find to be an irrational conspiracy theory.
Apparatchiks never give up painting the world a sickly grey.
In view of all the evidence that the FBI under Comey & Wray has acted as a wing of the democratic party and perpetrated some extreme acts that most people believe to be un-American and dishonorable, I think this is the point where we simply agree to disagree.
If you really want to think critically, I recommend you read the indictments, compare what is stated to the evidence that is currently publicly available, read the associated US code and see if it makes rational sense.
If one operates in an alternate reality where one presumes all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense, one will be unable to objectively deal with the Trump indictments.
And I will say this again. My hypothesis is that you, et. al., have realized that DeSantis will not be the nominee and that you will be forced to vote for Trump or abstain. In reaction, I expect a lot more irrational Trump defense to ensue for the balance of the campaign.
It's too early if DeSantis will be the nominee or not. The experts didn't think that Trump had a chance in hell either.
And you're certainly not an expert...just an opinionated partisan leftist who ignores reality.
The Dems seem to be very nervous and scared of the commonsense candidate from Florida, the way they demonize him.
As i said earlier, it's unlikely that Biden will even run again. But it's highly likely that the Republican nominee woud beat him.
I'll be voting for the GOP nominee, whoever that turns out to be
Yeah, Greg, it is too early (technically) any time prior to him securing the nomination.
But it is easy to see that he is failing and that Trump is dominating.
Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about.
I think we all know that you are a blind GOP partisan and the only thing that matters is whether an R or D is beside the name of a candidate.
No, I'm not a blind partisan....just have watched the ongoing damage and destruction the leftists have done to our country for decades and will continue to vote against them. The only Dem I have voted for was JFK. I've had a very long time watching this political circus....the first president I voted for was Eisenhower.
Anyone who says that they will vote for whoever is the GOP nominee is, by definition, a blind partisan.
You gave NO qualifications. The GOP could nominate a felon and you, by your words, would vote for the individual.
That is about as blind as one can be.
Speaking of blind, you read funny. All he said was he would vote against Dems. Doesn't mean he will vote GOP.
Um ... "I'll be voting for the GOP nominee, whoever that turns out to be."
Where in the post referred to did that sentence come from? But thanks as he did say that previously.
Pay better attention before leaping at a cheap gotcha:
Good grief Jim just stop with the chickenshit gotcha nonsense. You are not fooling anyone: see @4.1.20
Trump is not a felon as we speak today, only accusations, no convictions. Probably won't be by election day either, as the evidence is so weak. Hillay had a lot of accusations, but no convictions, and I'm sure she would have got your vote.
Calm down now, and have a good day.
Hey I did read and stand corrected but the goddamned comment you replied to said nothing of the sort. I didn't read the previous comment prior to that. See 4.1.19
I apologize if I hurt your sensibilities
Well thanks for letting us all know the obvious, Greg.
Like I said, pay better attention before leaping on a chickenshit gotcha. Actually, better yet, I suggest you refrain from playing childish gotcha games and make comments on that which really matters.
So will you vote for the GOP nominee no matter who it is?
No, he's not.
I suggest you refrain from your "catholic nun instructor is always right" bullshit. [removed]
It’s beyond accusations, various prosecutors are taking it to trial. And the fact that they are taking it to trial suggests the evidence is far stronger than you are pretending since prosecutors almost never bring a case to trial if they aren’t confident they will win.
You know the answer is yes. Jim is a pure partisan, substance is of no consequence. Party affiliation is the end all be all.
Please stay on topic of which I am not. And had Tulsi Gabbard been nominated in '20, I would have voted for her over Trump. If she was running this time and got the nod, she would have my vote. Kinda shoots holes in your bullshit now doesn't it.
And I am sure you considered that in '16 and '20
Thus far today, you have been told who you will vote for and what you think.
Why are you physically here when it is obvious your physical presence isn't even required for debate now?
Yet you refuse to answer my question. In 2024, will you vote for the GOP nominee whoever that is?
Depends on who steps up and challenges Joe on the Dem side. I will not vote for Biden. Nor vote for Trump. Let's see who the No Label Party comes up with although I hate like hell to do that to help either one of them out. So I just may not vote PotUS.
I'm 'somehow' sure that you were praising Comey on October 28, 2016.
Good for you! You disagree with Greg (and thus those who think similarly) who will vote for whoever is nominated by the GOP.
“So I just may not vote PotUS.”
Which we all have every right to do.
Perhaps if enough of us do so, we can send a message that we demand more…deserve more.
They won't listen but it's not a bad idea
I could see 2024 being the lowest turn out in history
MTG wants to be VP ... that should seal the deal.
Sadly, the biggest threat to our system of governance is apathy. Hopefully, our children will learn from the dysfunctional nature of what we have left in our wake and will right the ship.
And again, it is going to depend on candidates. I said I would not vote for Trump or Biden. Period.
Oh, FFS, just say what they want and be done with this exercise in futility.
Why? For doing his job?
Again? Did you not see where I acknowledged that and voted you up?:
Like I said, pay attention.
So you are 85+ years of age (suggesting a bit of set-in-ways) and have not voted for a D in 63 years (confirming a very long established way). Not sure I would lead with that.
When did you last vote for a Republican president? Have you been a lifelong Democrat?
Why would any rational person vote for Biden again....let alone voting for him the first-time.
Maybe by the time you get old you will have discovered a tad of wisdom, and a bit of humility.
Oh, and by the way, I changed my voter registration last week to....unaffiliated.
Romney (unless you count my protest vote for Kasich). And I would love to vote for Romney again (except for his age)!
I have never been a D nor am I D today nor do I plan to ever be affiliated with any political party.
If the only other possible choice is Trump, and if Trump has a chance to win, I can see plenty of rational folks voting for Biden to ensure Trump is never PotUS again. Even if they have to hold their nose to do so.
That does not mean anything Greg if you are going to blindly vote for whomever is nominated by the GOP. If so, you are arguably an IINO.
Because Trump was and is the alternative. That leaves rational people with no choice but to vote for who isn’t trump.
Voted for Bush senior way back in the day.
Likely will never ever vote for a fascist ever again.
What makes you think Bush 1 was a fascist, or are you just trying to meet the "put fascist in every post " quota?
that seems alot smarter than voting for fascists wherever you imagine them to bem
Don't fucking tell me what to do. Capiche? You aren't my mom, dad, mentor, or even someone whose opinion I value. Just fucking stop. Stay on topic or leave.
If you write a post to me that is a contradiction of what I have written, I will challenge you on it. You can play keyboard tough guy until you are blue in the face, but the challenges will continue.
I applauded your declaration of not necessarily voting for whomever is nominated by the GOP and I voted up your comment. Clearly you failed to carefully read what I wrote.
[deleted]
[deleted.]
Your math is off, assuming he voted for Eisenhower in 1956 he would have to be a least 88 now as the voting age was 21 in 1956.
Excellent demonstration of missing the point only to focus on a meaningless factor.
BTW I believe some states, at least Kentucky, allowed 18 year olds to vote in 1956.
You made an error on calculating his age, that was my point. Own up to it instead of trying to cover it up.
And who would that be. Certainly not Trump. He is not now, never been nor ever will be charged with treason. If you think he has, please post a link.
Unfortunately he did not do his job. Hillary was never fitted for orange jumpsuit she so richly deserves.
Too bad as she is very fond of pantsuits.
So basically you are spending your time on an entirely pointless failed gotcha.
And, as noted, some 18 year olds could vote in 1956 so your feeble gotcha goes up in smoke.
Go with definition 1.
What is with these feeble attempts at chickenshit gotchas? Is this the best a few of you have nowadays?
A pantsuit and a jump suit are two different thing
I suppose Putin would allow him to immigrate.
As an independent I cannot vote for trump under any circumstances. Not only has he shown time and again that his only concern is for himself, he has also shown the desire to destroy our system of government at its core by undermining and attempting to steal a legitimate election.
This happens when the likes of Trotsky fanboy Steve Bannon are given undue attention.
My late sainted mother would enjoy the fact that I target fascists.
That was funny...
Why do you doubt that Thrawn is an independent?
Where did I say I doubted it.
I just thought it was funny that he would actually post something like that.
BTW...again,,,,no rabbit holes. Not playing.
What’s funny?
Then why would his comment be funny? What is the comical part of being independent of a political party?
[deleted]
The fact that you claim to be an independent. I can assure you that absolutely zero of your posts attest to this.
You never criticize democrats or leftists, but seem to want to insult republicans and conservatives at almost every turn.
Never said he was not an independent.
Read 5.2.6 for education.
You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of a political independent.
Are you aware that a political independent can hold all sorts of views ranging from left to right? There are political independents who are registered Ds and those who are registered Rs. The concept of political independence boils down to how one makes a decision. If one predominantly merely adopts the position of a political party then that individual would not be an independent. An independent does not simply accept views of a party but rather develops their own views. Sometimes the views of an independent will align with the Ds, sometime with the Rs, and sometimes with neither.
Political independence correlates with critical thinking. Simplistic partisanship correlates with mindless party loyalty and basically letting 'trusted sources' do one's political thinking.
Note: there are also those who I would label strategic partisans. These are critical thinkers who have determined that, as a whole, it is better for a particular party to be in power. These individuals might vote a straight party line not because they merely accept what they are told but rather due to strategic factors such as dealing with the balance of power in the SCotUS, judges, etc. One might, for example, strategically favor a D PotUS today due to SCotUS vacancies but an R Congress due to concerns regarding illegal immigration, fiscal discipline (at least in the past), etc. as well as imposing a political check on government.
Now, I am not sure how Thrawn thinks, but I can easily see why anyone today who thought critically would find current GOP partisans to be on the wrong side of truth at almost every turn. The GOP today is a mess and hardly, IMO, deserves the label GOP. While I find neither party desirable, it is quite clear that of the two major parties, the GOP is the most dysfunctional ... by far. And that truly sickens me and I blame those who defend the factors that have turned the GOP into the dysfunctional mess that we see.
In short, maybe the problem is that, collectively, the Ds are more rational than Rs nowadays. Empirically, that has been my conclusion. Maybe Thrawn thinks similarly.
Well, if you say you can vote Biden but not Trump, then you are just showing your non independent bias.
Unless it’s just that you simply like his brand of being a lying POS but not Trumps.
How, exactly, would a choice for Biden indicate that Thrawn is not party independent. You do realize that independents make choices, right?
The only response that snarky comment deserves is a call out.
For someone who regularly accuses others here of snark, you sure post a lot of snark of your own.
Why are you deflecting from such an easy question?
You found it strange that an independent would be able to choose Biden. Independents make choices. Why does that suggest Thrawn is not an independent?
How? Because I consider Trump to be so bad and such a threat to our very system of government that I will vote for a confused old man whose idiot son may go to prison but isn’t actively seeking to create an imperial presidency?
That makes me not an independent? Or am I not an independent because I don’t sympathize with you?
Maybe he just doesn't want to answer your question.
Who asked for your sympathy? Not me as I sure as shit don’t need it.
It cracks me up when people here convince themselves they are independent by, for example, picking one serial liar over another, as somehow being more dangerous to the union.
Especially when one is a seriously cognitively challenged serial liar with a completely ineffective fool for a VP. A man who among other lies, lied about where his son died. And as a Vet that should really piss you off.
But I guess your “independence” helps you look past details like that.
Amazing that you arrogantly think you know the thought process and political philosophy of another poster better than he.
There is no way that you can know Thrawn is not politically independent; if you understand what political independence means.
Met many kettles lately
And yet you consistently to the same thing and we are supposed to just accept it.
I cannot under any circumstances vote for Biden. He has taken money from our enemies and assist those who would like nothing more than see us wiped off the face of the earth. I will not support anyone who allows this country to be invaded from the south, not only not doing anything to stop it but encouraging them to come.
It wasn't Trump trying to destroy the US, but Biden and his America last programs are surely giving it a go
Trump is the only PotUS in our history who corruptly attempted to steal a US election through coercion, lies, false documents, etc. and you think a failure to control illegal immigration is worse than that?
You're attempting to defend a failure with a failure?.....
No, Greg, I am stating why Trump should never be considered for PotUS.
All the things Hillary tried. Oh but it that was OK with you.
What in your wild imagination do you think Hillary did to try to steal the 2016 election?
How can anyone possibly make such a reference while ignoring all that Trump has done?
But at the same time you are defending Biden.
Why do you think that the alleged corruption accusations are not as bad as the charges made against Trump.
Please keep your partisanship in check when you answer this.
lack of evidence.
On actual paper, yes, however, it took 4 prosecutors 2.5 years to come up with enough of what they think as evidence to charge Trump.
Republicans have had the House for 8 months. Plenty of time to catch up with the far leftists that charged Trump.
Get a clue, Bugsy. I have been quite critical of Biden; it is simply the case that Trump is far worse (order of magnitude) and thus brings much more criticism.
Further, being critical of Trump when the topic is Trump is not ipso facto defending Biden.
Defending Biden would involve this:
I did not even mention Biden.
Now, hopefully that registers with you. Assuming so (
), I will defend Biden when unfair criticism is made. For example, it is unfair to deem Biden a babbling fool who cannot tie his own shoes or to claim he does not care about Maui after he posted sympathy, gave a speech of condolence and support, and authorized federal assistance to the people of Maui. In contrast, I have criticized Biden on important matters (e.g. his age, his choice of V.P., the idiotic loan forgiveness attempt, the push for massive spending bills, leaving weapons and equipment behind in Afghanistan, the failure to properly secure the border, etc.). If someone were to fairly criticize Biden for factors like these you will not find me defending Biden on these factors.
Quite a few, however, will defend Trump on virtually anything. When I see people attempting to water-down (dramatically even) the indictments or personally demean the agents behind the indictments of Trump, yet have absolutely no argument support their criticism, that is a partisan defense of Trump. Those who continue to downplay Trump's actions surrounding Jan 6th especially are providing a meritless political defense of Trump.
Typically I challenge people like you to substantiate your meritless defenses of Trump with an actual adult argument. Typically that challenge is unanswered and instead intellectually dishonest tactics are employed.
Not impressive.
But yet you will never defend Trump for unfair criticism....only because you believe he is SOOOOOOO much worse than Biden.
Hilarious that you say that people are trying to water down Trump indictments, even when non partisan Constitutional experts say that most of the charges are bogus or going to be very difficult to prove.
BTW...asking for a phone number is not conspiracy to overthrow a government.
Get a clue.
Give me an example of unfair criticism of Trump.
WTF are you talking about? Who made that claim?
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing by President Biden.
Speaking of getting a clue . . . None of the charges are bogus and most have already been proven.
[Deleted]
When were the trials completed....
or did you feelings get in the way again?
The feeling that he's guilty of sin.
guilty as sin - on every charge
Just as I thought.....
Feelings over facts.
No surprise
Nope, the truth and facts.
Just as you 'thought'
Where's the proof?
We've been waiting for many years now, if there was proof it would have been provided.
So, it's your feelings over the truth.
No surprise.
[Deleted]
Many years?
Don't know what year you think you are in, but the Bidens have been investigated for a whopping 8 months.
THAT is a fact.
[Deleted]
try and convict trump and then remove his enablers in the next election...
Everything that was in the Steele file. That he colluded with the Russians.
I weighed in on that, stating that it was without merit.
Remember "Repeal and replace"? The "Republican health care plan" that we were promised, year after year after year?
This is kinda the same: to be repeated and repeated until everyone's brains are numb, and then to be forgotten.
they're going to run on the price of gas and groceries again, since it worked out so well last time.
It'll be a close race, with Fox lies trying to convince viewers that the pretty good economy they can observe all around them is not real.
BIDEN got the Inflation Reduction Act passed. While I don't usually credit (or debit) any President for the country's economic situation, the IRA is exceptional: we're onshoring jobs, investing massively in greenhouse gas reducing tech, with the continuing job creation that implies, ... I'm not sure what "Bidenomics" is supposed to mean, but Joe Biden's not-at-all-spectacular economic policy is succeeding.
republicans can't maintain their numbers due to various factors of attrition.
Should be 100%.
I would say the same of Biden.
We will likely have to pick one or the other. I for one will never vote for a traitor who has the distinction of being the only PotUS in our history who tried to steal (corruption, collusion, coercion, etc.) a US election.
Yes, that does seem to be the bullshit we're going to be offered. I for one would never vote for such a cognitively challenged career politician,........
Greg, seriously, you present Biden as though he were a vegetable. He is still more articulate than most even with his increasing number of gaffs.
So compare Biden to Trump now. Trump is likely going to argue that he really, really believes that the 2020 election was stolen. That is beyond delusional.
Do you prefer a delusional narcissist who tried to steal a U.S. election and who demonstrated that he will throw the nation under the bus if it suits his desires over Biden even though he is well past his prime?
Do you really think so? Most who?
That's the point. The parties with all the power will give us that choice...
Dementia or narcissism? Hmmmm...
85 year olds with prior brain injuries, i guess.
Yes. He screws up but you have to look at more than blooper videos. He is quite capable of making a coherent speech. Again, he is not at the level I would expect from a PotUS but he is nowhere near the drooling, senile, demented old fool as Rs paint him.
Ahh, so some other senators...
So, good enough then?
Better than trump.
That seems to be the hang up with the GOP.
Biden is not popular, most people don’t want him to run again, most think he is too old for the job.
But if trump is the alternative…
Trump has never had majority support. Even in 2016 a majority of Americans didn’t want him as president. Since then he has proceeded to lose every election cycle.
And yet republicans still have this idea that because their base (a small minority) loves him, he has national appeal.
At what?..
Good description. May I use that?
Mumbling, falling up steps, forgetting where he is, there are other similar things
And STILL a better option than Trump, or even Desantis for that matter. Apparently the only word in that guys vocabulary is “woke.”
No. I have stated clearly right here on NT that Biden is too old to be PotUS (that was my position prior to his election).
So it is not 'good enough' but rather 'no option'.
Sure, you can make any foolish comment you want. You will not influence anyone but you will get pats on the back from fellow blind partisans.
He about as coherent as his VP. OH! WAIT! She isn't coherent either.
And that's just fucking sad... so you'll vote Biden?
Exactly. Biden is too old for the job but if the alternative is Trump… well I am kinda backed into a corner.
Funny thing is trump is basically as old as Biden…
Do you really think anyone here has any influence on anyone else here?
Biden isn’t Trump.
No shit? Thanks Captain Obvious....
Apparently the point wasn’t obvious enough.
He's worse.
Here is the position I have stated on NT:
If Trump and Biden are the nominees and I determine that Trump has a chance of winning, I am voting for Biden as a vote against Trump.
If Trump and Biden are the nominees and I determine that Trump has no realistic chance of winning, I will cast a protest vote or abstain.
If Trump is not the nominee then given the current pool, I could see myself (holding my nose) and voting for Chris Christie (Hutchinson is too old; a younger Hutchinson would have my vote).
If Trump and Biden are the nominees and Biden were to pick a different V.P. who is someone that I could support as PotUS (e.g. Tim Walz), then I will happily vote for Biden/x.
If Chris Sununu returns to the race, I will campaign for him and happily cast a vote for him.
I reserve the right to adjust the above based on future conditions.
That explains why some of you apparently do not care about your avatar credibility.
Wtf is "avatar credibility "?
Credibility of your web persona.
I see, is there like a secret handshake too?...
Nah, I'm pretty sure that most members know where your coming from...
Implicitly my answer was 'yes'. But it is a qualified 'yes':
Now, when it comes to two individuals on opposite sides of an issue in a forum such as this, it is almost certainty that there will be little cross-influence. Those who might be influenced are the readers.
Parts of this thread removed for derailing and no value.
Why? HIs tenure hasn't been that bad. Unless, of course, a person lives in a bubble of alternate reality and only consumes media from propaganda outlets spewing a never ending stream of demagoguery, ridiculous ad hominem attacks, and manufactured bullshit like "the Biden crime family."
Trump, on the other hand, is a treasonous tyrant who tried to bring down the Republic.
No one would ever say Biden has been a great President.
Only a fool, a blind partisan, or a fascist enemy of democracy in America would say Biden has been a bad President. Of course, it's possible to embody more than one of these...
Biden is an ordinary man. These days, that's not too bad.
And you need not wander far from here to find some of them.
You noticed?
Only if you
Would you say that about Biden if there is irrefutable evidence that he took bribes from countries that want to destroy us.
Somehow, common sense says you will still vote for him because you believe his accusations are not as bad a sBiden's accusations.
Only 40%of the people give Biden a favorable job performance rate. That sure is a lot of fools, blind partisans, and fascist enemies of democracy.
But yet you continuously accuse us of going to vote for Trump no matter what.
What do you think we should believe you?
I'm thinking secret decoder ring with an ever changing password.
Oh, for fuck's sake. This retarded shit is so goddamn tiresome.
What exactly do you call a sitting president who tried to overthrow an election he knew full well he lost in order to stay in power. Hmm? Seriously, tell me. WHAT DO YOU CALL HIM???
If somehow you aren't aware, elections are what keep us a republic – government of and by the people. Get it? If someone manages to take power regardless of election results, then we won't be a republic anymore, and that's exactly what Trump tried to do. That makes him a treasonous tyrant. How can you not understand this by now?
Mr President?
Just like Clinton did? Did you forget all the protest calling for her to be made president or the weeks of rioting in the streets of several cities, or the attempts to get the electors to be faithless, or the dozens of recounts that she knew had no chance of succeeding?
Such fucking stupidity.
See previous post.
I didn't imagine any of that happening. What is stupid is your denial that it did.
That the best you got? Do show where I was in error.
Those who demonstrate blind partisanship for queen Hillary will never acknowledge the wrongdoing she was responsible for in 2016.
Clinton did none of that. You said yourself it was other people doing it. She fucking conceded the morning after the election. [Deleted]
Details that must be ignored for the TDS ridden.
She joined a lawsuit to overturn the election in Wisconsin, hired a foreign agent to spread lies about her opponent in oreder to deflect from her mishandling of classified documents, and claimed the election was stolen from her for years. [Deleted]
Yes.
Your 'common sense' is distorted by your ridiculous and overly simplistic stereotype ... a stereotype that is based on demonstrated ignorance of political independence and my positions.
My comment was predicated on the current reality of having two candidates where one is a traitor. If both are traitors, I would need specifics to determine what I would do. My first reaction is to abstain, but the specifics might suggest otherwise.
Here is a scenario I can easily weigh in on, if Biden is shown to be a traitor and his opponent is a normal politician (not a traitor, but nothing special), I would absolutely NOT vote for Biden.
If Trump is the nominee, will you vote for him?
Set the record straight. Stand up and be clear.
Of course. Obviously. This is the crux: there is no proof of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and there's a ton of evidence of criminal activity by Donald Trump.
So OF COURSE it's acceptable to vote for Biden and OF COURSE it's unacceptable to vote for Trump.
It's really simple.
I swear, you'd think I'd get used to this level of depravity because it's so prevalent among some people, but I never do. It's always just... flabbergasting.
It's also absurd that the topic of Trump has been twisted into yet another weak-assed deflection about Hillary. How many times does this shit have to be rehashed before you and others comprehend reality?
It was a lawsuit for a recount, and the key word is "joined." She didn't start it, Jill Stein did, and that was the only one she was involved in (not dozens like arkpdx claimed). When it was over the result was accepted and that was it, the end.
From Wikipedia:
On November 25, 90 minutes before the deadline, Stein filed a petition to the Wisconsin Elections Commission for a recount of the state's votes. A request for a recount was also made by Independent presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente. In Wisconsin, a recount would involve a manual examination of all three million ballots, with a completion deadline of December 13.
On November 26, the Clinton campaign's general counsel Marc Elias stated that their campaign would join Stein's recount efforts in Wisconsin and possibly others "in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides." He also noted that, "Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves."
Yay. Big deal. Recounts in and of themselves aren't unusual to begin with. They happen all the time. What matters is if the results are accepted or not, and they were.
Who, Steele? Yeah, that's what she did. /s
Btw, don't you remember the outcome of that documents investigation?
...the State Department probe found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”
But let's not forget how mentally defective, hyperpartisan fools on the right don't seem to care about mishandled documents when it comes to Trump. Funny how that works, eh?
I can only find one instance of her using the word "stolen," in a CNN interview in 2019, and still it wasn't a direct accusation. The vast majority of of her objections have been along the lines of the election "not being on the level."
Regardless – she conceded, the election result was officially and publicly accepted, and a peaceful transfer of power ensued. Extremely important points, none of which are true of Trump the Usurper.
Incidentally, voicing concern about interference in the 2016 election is certainly not unjustified, considering that various investigations all found that Russia did, in fact, seek to interfere on Trump's behalf, including the Mueller investigation and the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation (GOP-led, btw).
Translated for the simple minded... Concerns about 2016 interference are justified because they are backed up by actual evidence, while Trump's wild ass claims about "massive" fraud in 2020 aren't, even after multiple recounts and investigations. See the difference? It's kind of a big one.
Removed for context - sandy
My hypothesis:
GOP partisans (those who will predictably vote R no matter what) have recently accepted that Trump is almost certainly going to be their nominee. Thus their party —to which they are personally and emotionally tied— is going to disgrace itself yet again and the 'reward' for suffering disgrace is losing yet another presidential election (and who knows the downstream negative effect).
Instead of honestly dealing with the embarrassing and ugly reality that their candidate is a traitor who corruptly schemed to steal a US election (among other things) and who is likely to be found guilty of felonies, they choose to defend the GOP. And they seem to think that their only possible defense is to invent an alternate reality (to lie) where:
It is ridiculous. It denies evidence that has been available to the public for years. It is irrational, illogical and unpatriotic. But apparently many GOP partisans would rather engage in outrageous lies rather than criticize the current state of their party and work to cure its dysfunction.
That's one thing that pisses me off to no end. It makes my blood boil.
I wonder if we're wrong to assume that the Usual Suspects are interested in politics. What if they do not in fact give a fuck?
If they're here for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, that would explain why they're free to spout any kind of nonsense. That would explain why they don’t bother to read the articles.
I think there is an interest in politics but it is more emotional and habitual than intellectual. My suspicion is that some have a drive to fight all those who hold different political positions and that fighting in itself is sufficient. The fight (the 'argument' so to speak) need not be sound — it need not even be coherent. As long as one is fighting, one is being a good soldier in the 'cause' and will receive the desired pat on the back by cohorts.
IMO.
I'm cogitating. Maybe ruminating.
Politics may be nothing more than an excuse for the Usual Suspects. It's hard to think of all the time I've spent "arguing" as being a waste of time.
Arguing with strangers on the internet is the definition of a waste of time. Not saying it can’t be entertaining, there is definitely some funny shit posted here. But if you are actually expecting to accomplish anything……
Yes I will...In a heartbeat.
Now, there should be no more lectures from you as I answered a question.
Thanks.
In other words.....If Bidens traitor actions are not as bad as Trump's, then you will still vote for Biden.
Not directly, no, but it is obvious to thinking people that he was involved in receiving cash directly or indirectly from countries that want to destroy us.
As far as the indictments, that is up to the jury to decide if they are with merit, or simply with most charges, a couple of far left prosecutors that RAN on getting Trump.
And you think it is unfair that I recognize that to be blind partisanship?
Apparently no matter how clear my English, you cannot seem to get it right.
[Deleted]
Not blind anything.I have an open mind and like most conservatives, would never vote for any of the current crop of democrats over Trump.
I can assure you that ALL of Trump's trials will be put past the 24 election, either by motions from the defense, or through appeals that would most certainly go to the SC. In the meantime, you may one again call Trump Mr President.
A nice illustration that I have been correct in my assessment of your comments.
Biden is "obviously" guilty although there's no proof of anything.
Trump is innocent although there's a mountain of paper, voice, and video proof of his conspiring to overthrow oir democracy.
I see...
[Deleted]
Only to those who refuse to open their eyes, do their research and think independently.
Most leftists follow this logic.
We are not the ones with our eyes closed.
We do our research and think independently.
Who is this "we" you are speaking of because from most leftists, their eyes are "wide shut"?
"We do our research and think independently."
Did you type that with a straight face?
The former 'president' is both demented and a malignant narcissistic socio/psychopath
You are just about always correct in those assessments, and 100% correct on this one.
Tig isn't the deluded one, get a clue!
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Trump defenders cant help themselves from lying. It is a plague among their ranks.
All everyone else can do is keep trying to get the country past all this idiocy.
Ya but the 'funny shit' is being posted by you and your like minded friends here.
I don't agree. Trumpists lie so much because the truth is unbearable for them... and lying is of no importance.
Such as?
And be specific with credible sites for your source.
Also, why you think whatever you find is a lie, and what the actual truth is.
Thanks.
I know you'd like to to waste my time, but no.....
Lol …… the projection is dripping off that comment
So, your post was nothing more than bs........
Most recently I would suggest reading this article seeded by JR:
This is just one article. How can you possibly NOT see the abundance of lies at play nowadays in the defense of Trump??
[Deleted]
Your post just got shellacked and instead of dealing with reality you pretend that I offered no examples of lies.
Worse, you deflect to a childish insult of Bob.
Another point, this is a forum. We do not need to wait for someone to REPLY to us before we opine.
I have known Bob for many years. He often does not respond to those whom he deems 'not worth the effort'. Your presumption is quite poor.
To clarify, you meant
"couldn't answer".
"Your 'challenge' just got shellacked and instead of dealing with reality you pretend that I offered no examples of lies"
Nothing got "shellacked". What you call lies are nothing more than an opinionated interpretation of of what you THINK are lies.
It is up to a jury to make the determination, not some anonymous blogger with a vendetta to destroy someone simply because of that person beat their queen in an election 8 years ago.
None so blind....
I do believe many of them would be happier under a right wing dictatorship
I hear somalia is for sale, which would be very convenient for the racist thumper scum that makes up the majority of the christo-fascist movement...
Two thirds (that would be 66%)of Americans , including 55% of Democrats don't want to see Biden run in 2024.
I think most everyone knows that the electorate as a whole does not want either Biden or Trump to run. The question really is why the two parties cannot seem to find a way to put forth candidates that people WANT to vote for.
They haven't done that since the eighties and then it was only the GOP.
Not true. Many people wanted to vote for Obama in 2008 (maybe not so much in 2012). Many (albeit not enough) wanted to vote for Romney in 2012 (even though he lost). People wanted to vote for Gore and for Bush 43 and wanted to vote for Clinton in 1996. Although a minority, people wanted to vote for Ross Perot.
What I am saying is that voters went to the polls to vote FOR these candidates rather than vote AGAINST their opponents. With Trump v Clinton and Trump v Biden and the possibility of a repeat of Biden v Trump, we have three election cycles where the parties have failed to put forth candidates the voters want to vote FOR.
This is the second straight candidature that the Dems have awarded by seniority. Hillary and Joe.
You spelled "stupidity" wrong.
Yup. And for the GOP, it was McCain and (earlier) Dole.
Bob Dole. A great American.
Unlike the shit we have today.
I met Bob Dole at the airport one time where we shared a gate waiting area. He would have been 70 or 80 at the time. He was very easy to talk to and we joked about his viagra and pepsi adds. I was struck by his lack of any entourage or even a travelling companion. Just retired Bob Dole, an old soldier, like I am now. He grew up during the Great Depression in a little Kansas town. Received two Purple Hearts and earned a Bronze Star. He could be a partisan but could also compromise and put country first. I'm afraid we don't see much of his kind anymore.
Yep, which is sad.
Beyond belief sad.
Our friends on the left would likely disagree
Which is equally sad.
I agree, Bob was not a great candidate but he was an honorable man and a genuine statesman.
Opinions vary based on your partisans leanings but we agree on the basics of the man. Same goes for John McCain.
He was to old in 1996 and the dot com economy to strong.
Not everyone needs a partisan lens to draw conclusions.
Lots of people think they don’t.
And yet here we are.
The problem in a nutshell.
I wonder if legitimizing the independent voters with an actual party would diminish the power they already have in general elections with the existing 2 party system.
Not sure how one can have a practical party of true independents. There could be a party of "NOT(R OR D)" that holds no positions, but that defies the meaning of political party. Even then, independents would not stick with this party's candidates and would instead choose from all three parties.
I get what you're saying, but I was thinking something along the lines of a coalition of moderates. fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
That would be a logical third party for the USA.
it could help bridge the partisan gap.
...and undo legislative gridlock.
What happened to 6.1.1 to 6.1.43?