Poll: How do Americans feel about a Trump-Biden rematch? 'Exhaustion' tops the list
By: Andrew Romano·West Coast CorrespondentApril 21, 2023 at 3:40 PM·5 min read (Yahoo News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
More Americans say they feel "exhaustion" over the prospect of a 2024 contest between Biden and his predecessor than any other emotion.
With President Biden reportedly set to announce his reelection campaign early next week, more Americans say they feel "exhaustion" over the prospect of a 2024 rematch between Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump, than any other emotion, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
The survey of 1,530 U.S. adults, which was conducted from April 14 to 17, found that 38% chose exhaustion after being shown a list of eight feelings and asked to select all that "come to mind" when considering another Biden vs. Trump campaign.
Among registered voters, the number is even higher: 44%.
No other sentiment — not fear (29%), sadness (23%), hope (23%), anger (23%), excitement (16%), pride (8%) or gratitude (7%) — cracks the 30% mark among all Americans.
Fatigue is an understandable response to what could be the first general election for president since 1892 to feature the incumbent and his defeated predecessor competing as the major-party nominees — and the only White House race in U.S. history in which one candidate is facing indictment and possible criminal prosecution for conspiring to overturn his prior loss.
Yet voters are not quite as pessimistic about a Biden-Trump sequel as they were a few months ago. In December, a nearly a third of them (32%) told Yahoo News and YouGov that "if Joe Biden and Donald Trump run against each other for president again in 2024," the result would be either "the worst thing that could happen" (15%) or "mostly bad" (17%); only 23% said it would be "mostly good" (11%) or "the best thing that could happen" (12%).
Now that 9-point gap has shrunk to just 3 points, with 29% of voters expressing a negative view and 26% of voters expressing a positive view. About 3 in 10 continue to say it's "a mix of good and bad." Positive views have increased since December among both Republicans (33%, up from 30%) and Democrats (24%, up from 17%).
Where the parties differ is that Republicans are more likely to see a rematch positively than negatively — while Democrats, despite some softening, are still more likely to see a rematch negatively than positively. Exhaustion, for instance, is more prevalent among Democrats (44%) than Republicans (26%) by a margin of 18 percentage points, and fear (+12 for Democrats), sadness (+15) and anger (+9) are more common on the left as well.
In contrast, Republicans express hope (+20), excitement (+10) and pride (+5) at greater rates than Democrats.
Much of the liberal aversion to another Biden-Trump contest likely reflects the former president's staggering unpopularity among Democrats; a full 68% of them say they have a "very unfavorable" opinion of him.
Yet Democrats' overall negativity also underscores their unease about Biden. More now say they would prefer to nominate the president (43%) over "someone else" (39%) — a reversal from the latter part of last year, when a plurality of Democratsrepeatedlysaid they would prefer someone else. But Biden's numbers among Democrats are a lot closer than Trump's among Republicans, with whom Trump leads "someone else" by a 49% to 39% margin.
For Democrats, the problem is not Biden's performance in office; they overwhelmingly approve (80%) rather than disapprove (16%) of how he is handling the job. Instead, anxiety about Biden's status as the oldest president in U.S. history — he is 80 now and would be 86 at the end of his second term — seems to be sapping confidence in his candidacy.
President Biden at the White House on Tuesday. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Asked in June 2020 how concerned they were "about Joe Biden's health and mental acuity," just 28% of Democrats said they were either somewhat (10%) or very concerned (18%); the other 72% said they were either slightly (28%) or not at all concerned (44%).
More than two and a half years later, however, the combined number of somewhat or very concerned Democrats has risen 12 points to about 40%, while the combined number who are slightly or not at all concerned has fallen by the same amount, to about 60%, according to a Yahoo News/YouGov poll from late February.
Overall, nearly 7 in 10 voters (68%) said in February that Biden would be "too old for another term" — and more Democrats agreed (48%) than disagreed (34%).
The good news for the president is that even though his job approval rating remains below 50% among all Americans, it is now at its highest level (44%) since September 2021 (up from about 40% for much of 2022). His approval rating on the economy (at 40%) is now 4 points higher than it was in early February, while his approval rating on inflation (36%) has increased by 5 points over the same period. And he performs 3 or 4 points better on each of those measures among registered voters.
Heading into 2024, Biden's approval numbers are still lower than the White House would like them to be. Yet current trend lines seem to be favoring the president over his recently indicted predecessor. In a general election matchup, Biden now enjoys a 4-point lead over Trump (46% to 42%) among registered voters. One month ago, Biden led Trump by just 2 points.
____________
The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,530 U.S. adults interviewed online from April 14 to 17, 2023. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2020 election turnout and presidential vote, baseline party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Baseline party identification is the respondent's most recent answer given prior to March 15, 2022, and is weighted to the estimated distribution at that time (32% Democratic, 27% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.8%.
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
We are rapidly approaching the stage when "both sides ism " will be the dominant theme in American presidential campaign coverage.
There is an assumption that it will be a Biden-Trump rematch, which means the media will do everything it can to make it a "horse race" rather than a choice between an old but normal Biden, and a mentally ill, and old, Trump.
It is said that America is , politically, in a state of confused despair. That is not because the election may be a choice between Trump and Biden, but because Trump is one of the choices.
If Trump wins the nomination the election won’t involve a choice for me. I miss the days of considering candidates and making a choice, but when Trump is involved there is literally no opponent that isn’t a better choice.
Sadly, in terms of evaluating the current condition of American character, what you say is so obvious but also not at all universally accepted.
It staggers the imagination that any rational person could claim there is a legitimate "choice".
People like this asshole are one of the biggest problems with America today.
I am watching Meet The Press and the fool Chuck Todd and his "panel" are right now talking about the unhappy "choice" between Trump and Biden. They will help this country headlong into disaster.
These idiots are talking about the "horse race" without ever mentioning that one of the horses is a traitor that tried to overthrow the US government. These mainstream "pundits" are a disgrace.
[deleted]
These “entertainers” are just trying to give their audience what they want to here and not upset them.
Exactly, main stream media, can’t live with them, can’t live without them.
Yep, people don't want Trump or Biden but the political system is so rigged that a Trump/Biden matchup has become almost inevitable. The way nominees are selected has nothing to do with democracy. Primaries to select nominees are not free and open elections. And that can't be fixed during the general election after the damage has already been done.
Correct. And apathetic, ignorant voters allow this to happen.
It is sad that so many are willing to yield the power of the presidency to someone who has demonstrated in stark terms that he cares only about himself and will trash anything and anyone to get what he wants.
To even consider voting for the only PotUS in US history to attempt to steal a presidential election with a campaign of lies (e.g. trashing the US electoral system, claiming that voters were disenfranchised, claiming that the elected PotUS was illegitimate, etc.) and coercion (e.g. Raffensperger, Bowers, Pence) is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic.
Whatever...but most of us will vote for whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be.
That attitude is what keeps Trump relevant. It is irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic to promise to vote for Trump if he secures the GOP nomination.
I dont think they care.
We live in a degraded country.
I have never been a big fan of Joe Biden. He was a three time loser in Democratic presidential primary campaigns for a reason. But the "choice" that bothsidesism is so eager for us to embrace is not really a choice. Trump is a traitor. Would today's Republicans and independents have voted for Benedict Arnold for president?
Just as democrats will vote for whom ever turns out to be the democratic nominee ...
No Republican stands a chance of getting the votes of most of us, "us" being the American voters.
Trump has a 25 percent overall approval.
Enough to be nominee, but not to win it...
Trump will lose swing states even worse.
Name a Biden state he has a chance in...
Can't, can you? It is not in reality's realm!
Republicans: Yes. Clearly.
Independents: No. Obviously.
No, Mark, that's just not so. The "Bernie or Bust" crowd showed us that - that Dems are not as good at uniting behind their candidate as Republicans are. Now, one could either say that's a weakness in the Democratic party, or a sign that Democrats show more integrity of principle than Republicans, even when it harms them politically.
Well sandy , those bernie or bust people are simply socialists pretending to be democrats anyway
As for uniting behind a candidate i think all parties have that issue when their chosen one doesnt get the nom . how bad it gets can be anyones guess.
Integrity and principles ? we ARE talking about politicians right ? they are simply one step lower than lawyers imho,which is basically seafloor level , hell they are even beneath whale shit . which explains why so many pols are or use to be lawyers of some kind ., just when you think they CANT sink any lower , they run for office ,
Not really. The GOP initially was pretty full of never-Trumpers. But in November 2016, the party whipped up support for Trump. Even today, those who oppose Trump are censured by the party, and lose office when they have the integrity to call him out for his lies. Ask Liz Cheney. Wyoming Republicans voted in the liar who supported the Big Liar.
And no, we're not talking about politicians here. We're talking about voters belonging to each party. Democratic voters are notorious for not presenting a united front, for the very reason that they tend to be a bit more stubborn in rejecting candidates on the basis of ideology. Republicans, the party of "family values", can muster up voter support for a thrice-married adulterer, liar, national security risk, con artist, and fraud, just because he's Republican.
For emphasis since it illustrates how the GOP has devolved over the years.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Trump became so popular for two basic reasons. First and foremost he made the "white grievance" crowd feel he was with them, by his campaign rhetoric but also because he had been the king "birther" in 2011. Secondly , because he made them feel they were "owning" the libs and the so called liberal media. Trump told them to beat up or insult anyone who catcalled him at the rallies. He regularly, as in all the time, berated the media at the rallies , "fake news". He made them feel good about their prejudices.
I would make an educated guess that 90% of the biggest Trump supporters, in 2016 as well as today, know nothing about his lifelong cheating, lying, tax fraud, bigotry, etc, because they dont want to know and its never talked about in right wing media.
Heh heh heh ,
Liz Cheney was and is a Virginia carpet bagging , POS in my book, never have , and never will vote for her for ANY office , even if she promises to buy her own pork chops to tie to her neck if she runs for dog catcher . ,good riddance to bad rubbish as far as im concerned , maybe she can get a job on the "View ", another talk show i don't watch .
yes i admit i helped vote her out of office ., but didnt vote for her opponent or the dem that lost either .
you are of course welcome to your own opinion of her , just dont expect others to share the same opinion .
Liz Cheney was honest, and lost her seat because of it, and the GOP's embrace of dishonesty.
Personal opinion there actually ,.
my view is she lost her seat representing the people of her district because they had different views and opinions , and as the representative of the people of that district , she could not afford to go against their thoughts , that simply opened the door for her to not get re elected ,as it was she lost in the primary to choose who would run in the general , some could say the voters fired her because of the difference , and ultimately it is always the voters of the districts choice, not hers .
It still boils down to, they voted for a known liar who supported an attempted insurrectionist. If the required her to pander to the lies to be reelected, that speaks poorly of them.
Again , opinion , care to ask the voters that elected the current representative( i am not one of them BTW) if they care what someone from out of state thinks ?
I assure you , they dont .
Yes, Mark, we're all giving our opinions. You, me, and every member here. Your point?
The point ? no opinion is any better or worse than the other , it just depends on where you are when you state that opinion .
Little known thing about Wyoming , they voted for term limits a number of years ago but the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional by the state constitution .
that doesnt stop the voters from imposing term limits though , they simply dont vote for someone that has already served the number of terms they have chosen personally . in the case of the HoR seat , it is usually 3-4 terms in DC, and that entirely depends on if the voters are happy with the candidate . Cheney had just finished her 3rd term , the displeasure of the voters with her is what cost her a 4th and likely final term anyway .
I never said anyone's opinion was better than anyone else's. We will all think our own best. That's how opinions work.
My opinion is that there is no excuse for voting in a candidate who doesn't support elections. You don't care for that opinion. I'm ok with you not caring, and will go ahead and have my opinion, anyway.
When Donald Trump came out at 1:00 in the morning on election night and said the election was being stolen from him was anyone really surprised? They shouldnt have been, he had been saying for five years that the only way he could lose an election was if it was stolen from him. The whole "argument' for a "stolen election" was baked in long before election day. Which makes the conservatives defense of him that much worse.
And i never said you did .
I think i already said everyone's entitled to their own opinion anyway , now if one considers it a good or bad one is dependent on exactly how much weight it carries with the individual themselves listening to it .
Only in Democrats eyes- who used her rampant TDS to their own ends on the Jan 6th committee. Liz is just like her father. Cross her and she will do anything to bring you down; including selling her soul to Democrats.
I am sure the Lincoln Project will be in her future. They seem to have found a real niche milking Democrats for money in return for attacking Republicans. She will fit in perfectly. No ethics, morals, or values required.
Will have to remind Democrats of the way they treated Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema for failing to embrace the Democrat's Fascist power of grabs packing the Supreme Court, and federalizing all elections. Dishonesty is every politicians trade mark. With our two party Establishment system they know they will always be rewarded for it.
I'm not a Democrat. Neither are many members of The Lincoln Project. They and I have just not been gaslit by Trump and those who defend him by minimizing his crimes.
That you don't think the Lincoln Project is a left wing organization is a prime example of being sucessfully gaslit.
Yours is a perfect example of how far out there the gop has gone with the MAGA nutters. All the old school conservative Republicans are outcasts from your gop!
Yikes.
Remind me, what was that Party called before it was known merely as the gop?
Well, I guess you don't pay very good attention. I'm an "old school Republican" who has never voted for Trump and never will. But since I don't spread lies and batshit crazy conspiracies about him while swooning over Biden like teen aged girls used to treat David Cassidy, I guess in your eyes that makes me MAGA.
Have you paid attention the last 5 years when they've attacked pretty much every Republican on the ballot? Do you recall when they got caught staging the tiki torch thing at a Glen Younkin (As mainstream a Republican as you will find) event and all of the people who got caught were career left wing activists? Or do you believe they were just Republicans working In deep cover for years as far left activists?
But sure John, an organization that attacks Republicans and works to elect Democrats is a Republican organization. Did you think Reagan was a Democrat in 1980, or were you able to grasp that he changed parties by then?
Fat Cats...
Thanks, that must be before the white, blue collar workers left the Dems and turned into racists.
The Lincoln Project is old school Repubs...
They oppose Trump. So, what's your prob?
They oppose all Republicans and want to elect Democrats. No "old school Republican" could do that without embracing Progressivism.
And don't look now, but the grifters at the Lincoln Project are trying to help Trump win the Republican nomination.
oh boy, you think you're so funny . . . . don't quit your day job
Very poorly, piss poorly.
Yes, you did.
No wonder the once Grand Old Party of Abe Lincoln is now known merely as "the gop"...
The gop today is not Reagan's upper case GOP!
50 years ago Democrats became Republicans saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me". Now I hear lifelong Republican friends and family saying that about the gop. It ain't what it used to be...
Those mired in gop must get out of that gop.
Because they're SINKING sinking sinking sinking.
[deleted]
That's the gop/gqp/republicans/CONservatives who don't stand a chance in hell for the Presidency for a long time to come.
They're scared shitless of Generation Z and their votes which is why the gop/gqp/republicans/CONservatives are now trying to remove their chances to vote DEMOCRAT by removing the opportunity on college campuses, etc., etc., etc., etc.
Trump? Clinton? Biden? Obama? Far too many Presidents and Presidential hopefuls fit that pattern.
Al Gore? Democrats have even concocted a Nixon southern strategy to hide George McGovern. The reason Democrats want to hide George McGovern is because southern Democrats did not vote for the party as they were expected to do. Party loyalty means support for anybody on the ticket, no matter who or what they are.
The elections are rigged during the primaries. We're only allowed to vote for rigged nominees. So, do we vote for a candidate or do we vote for a political party? How many people voted for Trump simply because he is Republican?
Let's be honest. Joe Biden is an incompetent President given to grandstanding, fabrication, misdirection, and gaslighting. People would vote for Joe Biden simply because he is a Democrat. In our rigged political system, the candidate doesn't matter all that much.
Donald Trump has never, for even one second, been fit to be president of the United States, or a local dogcatcher for that matter. It is an everlasting shame on this country that he was elected once upon a time.
No, only Trump fits what I described.
No comparison.
Political donations determine who can successfully run. Not sure how we get the money out of politics.
Of course. And people vote for GOP nominees simply because the are Republicans. That is what pure partisans do. But we are talking about an extreme situation ... one that should cause even GOP partisans to object. Trump is not simply a bad candidate, he is one who should never be allowed political power based on WHAT HE HAS DONE. It is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic to enable Trump to secure the GOP nomination.
At election time, we're all required to be pure partisans. Only a Republican or a Democrat can become President. So, people are required to vote for the party they agree with; the candidate is not that important.
If a voter is concerned about the Democratic Party pursuing a far left agenda then the rational choice is to vote for Trump. Trump isn't that important in the decision other than opposing Democrats' far left agenda. If you are concerned that an arbitrary and artificial transition to an all electric economy will damage the economy and weaken the United States then the rational choice is to vote for Trump, as long as Trump opposes that transition. It doesn't matter who or what Trump is; what matters is opposition to stated goals of the Democratic Party.
Most democracies allow more than two political parties. That typically requires forming a coalition government. Voters have more choices and the result is a more representative government that requires compromise. The United States limiting voters to purely partisan choices results in a winner-take-all government that essentially disenfranchises the losing party. The government is less representative and the two parties have a vested interest in avoiding compromise.
How can you possibly think that? We have two practical choices and sometimes a few impractical (wasted vote) choices. A Republican can vote for the Democratic nominee and vice-versa. Independents, of course, are even more likely to vote regardless of party.
Under normal circumstances, but Trump is a profound exception. To not recognize this is what enables Trump to even have a chance for the GOP nomination. It is your kind of thinking that has brought and continues to enable Trump.
Two parties (in effect) is problematic. I would prefer 0 parties, but since we have always had parties, I would prefer at least 3 viable parties competing with different ideas.
The two political parties are even requiring commitments for all participants to support whoever wins the nomination. And only a Republican or Democrat can become President.
The entire political system is rigged to be purely partisan. And 'wasted vote' choices won't fix the damage that has been caused.
Why is Trump a profound exception? Who would win a rematch between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Why weren't there better choices for voters in 2016? Why couldn't a 'wasted choice' candidate win the 2016 election?
The argument is premised upon deliberately ignoring significant reasons why Trump was elected. Limiting the argument to Trump, alone, doesn't address the underlying problems and preventing Trump from running again only endorses the underlying problems. That's symptomatic of pure partisanship; only the other side has bad candidates.
That's an intellectually dishonest argument. The only way to achieve zero parties would be to completely eliminate party primaries. And we know that won't happen. The danger of a two party system is that it could become a one party system. Fewer political parties create autocratic governments that disenfranchise opposition. I contend that what we need is more political parties that would give voters more viable choices and force the need to form coalition government that can only function with compromise.
You are stating the obvious as if I argued the opposite.
If you do not understand this by now, there is no hope that my explanation would help you.
No shit Nerm. Did you read the rest of my comment?
WTF do you think I just suggested? Do you read full comments or just cherrypick?
Is it obvious? Democrats claimed that voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton was a vote for Trump. A 'wasted vote' was a vote for Trump. Democrats engaged in an undemocratic resistance because in our winner-take-all political system, Democrats felt disenfranchised. And the resistance was toward anyone who did not vote for Hillary Clinton. Democrats viewed voters that 'wasted their vote' as Trump supporters.
You suggested eliminating political parties. That's not what I suggested; I contended we need more political parties.
Eliminating political parties would be step toward enforced ideological purity. History is replete with examples.
Yes. Your argue for the sake of argument style is obnoxious. You made a statement, I noted that your statement is obvious and now you argue against your own statement.
No I did not. I stated that I would prefer that we have 0 parties but since we have never had 0 I suggested we have at least three.
Here, Nerm, read this quote:
How have I argued against my own statement? You contended I stated the obvious and I have disagreed with your contention.
So, are we in agreement or disagreement?
You stated support for multiple positions then cherrypick (with bolded bits and pieces) based upon the response. And then you attempt to make me the topic of discussion.
We are done.
The latter . . .
Both of them are too old
Everyone agrees but Joe cannot pass the baton as long as there is a good chance Trump will somehow get reelected. The Democrats cannot and will not consider replacing Joe as long as Trump looks to be the gop nominee. Despite all the guff he takes Joe Biden is holding down the fort admirably. Outside the Fox News Universal Bubble Americans trust Joe more than Trump to lead the Most Powerful Nation in the World...
Democrats are winning "the gop's culture war"!
Trump really has no chances of beating Biden.
Agreed. But anyone except Trump stands a good chance of beating Brandon.
Too bad Ronda Santis is not viable in any of the swing states he would have to win...
The gop's culture war plus the abortion issue are turning swing states bluer...
What is popular in The Redneck Riviera will not float in Pennsylvania or Nevada.
Currently, DeSantis is getting his ass kicked by Mickey Mouse. His childish vendetta against Mickey is costing him support and big money donors.
Signing the six week abortion bad behind closed doors didn't endear him to many voters.
I read today that some North Carolina politicians want to entice Disney World to move to their state.
I am sure that they do, but I doubt that Disney would consider moving out of Florida. They have billions invested with airports that serve the world. DeSantis will be gone in the most two years and Disney will still be here.
I think most states would love to have them. But the cost to rebuild all of what they have in FL would be staggering.
Democrats - Donate at DonaldTrumpForPresident
I honestly can't believe this is even a question. Trump is a fucking traitor who tried to end the republic. The LAST thing he should be doing is running for office again. This is insanity.
Here's what needs to happen instead, separate and apart from all the other lawsuits currently against him...
Legal action should also be in the offing for everyone who knowingly and willingly aided and abetted his little coup attempt, including on-air personalities, producers, and owners at Fox News and other outlets who KNEW THEY WERE LYING ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD, setting some who actually believed their nonsense on a path to violent insurrection.
There HAVE to be consequences for shit like this. Nobody involved should be walking around free as if nothing ever happened.
And to people who disagree and continue to support Trump – you are NOT patriots, so don't bother pretending that you are. The jig is up, and has been for a while.
Couldn't agree with you more Dig.
I'm not sure that's a legal possibility, but the rest of it - absolutely.
Even his favorite kid can see the writing on the wall.
Who besides me is still curious about Justice Kennedy's resignation?
So much crap happened on Trump's watch that I'd almost forgotten about that, but wasn't it reported that his resignation was orchestrated in advance, with Gorsuch offered up to Kennedy ahead of time as some kind of deal? Is there more that I've forgotten?
The fact that Kennedy's son was employed by Deutsche Bank, and was instrumental in getting loans to Trump approved despite a history of defaults.
Hmm. Interesting. I either missed that one or completely forgot. But, again, there was so much crap to keep up with.
Thanks. So Kavanaugh was the deal, not Gorsuch.
It's like ethics violations have become par for the course for some on the Court these days.
So it seems.
I want to take a shower after reading that.
[deleted]
Wow....how Marxist of you.
I spent 20 years in the navy and gave about half or more of that serving my country overseas.
If I say I support Trump, does that mean to you I am not a patriot?
Pretty fucked up on your part if you say it does.
I could throw some bullshit out there and say :I believe those that never served this country are NOT patriots, so stop pretending you are"...but I know better than to throw bullshit like that.
How do you get 'Marxist' from what Dig wrote?
It means you are engaging in an unpatriotic act. One act does not mean you are not a patriot. Get a grip.
No idea where that came from, but all it did was make me laugh. Sorry if that wasn't your intention.
So what? I'm a veteran too, with my choice of three different combat patches for my right sleeve. Big deal. There are millions upon millions of veterans in this country.
To me? Maybe you used to be, but at this point? Today? After everything that's come out? You're goddamn right I wouldn't consider you a patriot. What the hell is wrong with you?
Trump knew full well he lost the election, and was told so repeatedly early on – by Republican election officials, no less. But that didn't matter. Instead of walking away gracefully and with dignity like normal presidents do, who actually care more about the country than their own egos, he proceeded to try to overthrow the election and hold onto power through extra-legal means.
He's a fucking tyrant. You can't be a patriot of this republic (or any other for that matter) and support a tyrant. Sorry, but the math just doesn't work there.
Thats right.
At least one thing this seed is accomplishing - we are getting down to the nitty gritty.
Would-be tyrant. He failed in the attempt. He had the advantage of incumbency, a friendly SCOTUS (with a member whose wife supported insurrection), and the support of the upper house of Congress, but he couldn't hang onto his seat.
He had the support of the most popular media outlet, armed supporters attacking government buildings and threatening lives on his behalf, and multiple state government officials attempting to commit election fraud in his favor, but he couldn't hang onto his seat.
He still has the support of many in the GOP and right wing media liars, even though, with all those advantages, he couldn't hang onto his seat.
What a loser.
Maybe you should read Dig's post. He specifically posted...and I quote "And to people who disagree and continue to support Trump – you are NOT patriots". Nowhere did he limit it to number of "acts"
The grip needs to be on you
Read your manifesto again. You are calling for the jailing and confiscation of property and citizenship on a person who has never had a charge against him, with the exception of a bunch of BS misdemeanors with no merit from a DA that had no choice but to make the charges. He had to because he promised his bank roller Soros and told everyone that was what he would do if he was elected.
"I'm a veteran too, with my choice of three different combat patches for my right sleeve. Big deal. There are millions upon millions of veterans in this country."
So what? If I questioned your patriotism because you voted for someone before, you would probably not be happy.
"To me? Maybe you used to be, but at this point? Today? After everything that's come out? You're goddamn right I wouldn't consider you a patriot. What the hell is wrong with you?"
Of course you would think that, but maybe you should reread my answer to you. I said "If I said", not "I am a Trump supporter". I am trying to teach your buddy above you the same reading comprehension lesson, but I feel like the lessons will go to waste.
I am all in for DeSantis. I think he would be a great president, as he is a great governor, as evidenced by many liberals allowing him a 20 point advantage election over the idiot Charlie Crist.
Pretty sad that most liberals hate Trump for two reasons.
One.....He beat queen Hillary, and
Two....He called for his supporters to peacefully and patriotically protest.
Patriotic must be the new racist
I saw what he posted. His post came after mine. Dig and I may not have an identical position on this point, but we certainly agree that supporting Trump is unpatriotic.
Those like the hypothetical you who support Trump are being unpatriotic. 'You' might be a patriot in the big picture, but 'you' are certainly NOT being patriotic by supporting Trump. Stated differently, one is not being a patriot when one supports Trump. On top of that, one's support of Trump is irrational and irresponsible.
What a stupid statement. Would you prefer that I consider hypothetical 'you' to lose all general claim to patriotism simply because hypothetical 'you' are being unpatriotic in your support of Trump?
Get a grip.
Again...reading comprehension is important. I never said I support Trump, as I am a DeSantis supporter.You continuous lies that everyone on here that does not toe your demands is defending Trump. Very few are, but most everyone is criticizing the BS being thrown at the man with no proof.
It is very leftist of you to claim someone is defending Trump without proof....very leftist of you.
You posed a hypothetical of "if you support Trump" and I responded to your hypothetical.
We have to stop pussyfooting with these people. I agree that someone could support Trump and still be patriotic regarding other issues, but support of Trump outweighs much of that other patriotism.
If they dont want to have their patriotism questioned they need to cut all support for Trump NO MATTER WHO THE DEMOCRAT IS.
When you pose a hypothetical 'you' do not whine when people response with 'you'. I now changed my post to the awkward hypothetical 'you' to illustrate how stupid that language looks.
Normally people will simply use 'you' in response to a hypothetical.
If that upsets you then use the language 'one' instead of 'you'.
I agree.
In this case, the poster is simply playing games. The hypothetical does not protect him because he (the non hypothetical) routinely defends Trump and that defense is what (collectively) enables Trump to continue.
The right to support whomever one wants to lead this country is.... in fact... what you were fighting for when you earned those three patches.
Sorry if you were unaware.
YOU need to get a grip on your triggered state that you have to focus on something where your response makes no sense.
Do you have a response to the rest of my post, or are we going to go back to your old ways of changing the argument to what you want, no matter if what you want was never in dispute?
all the MAGA here are Trump supporters. Some of them try and qualify it by saying if the Democrats nominate someone they approve of (not Biden or anyone to the left of Joe Manchin) then they may abandon Trump.
Thats just not good enough.
This poster does not give a rat's ass about what your hypothetical triggerisms cause. My post stands as is. I do not support, nor do I defend him, no matter how you beg posters to do so so you have something to argue.
And so is the right to deem a Trump supporter unpatriotic, irresponsible and irrational.
Where do you see Dig claiming that a Trump supporter does not have the right to support Trump?
[deleted]
Do you consider voting for Trump for PotUS in 2024 an act of patriotism?
[deleted]
If someone claims they want someone other than Trump to be the nominee yet hold that they will vote for Trump if he becomes the nominee, they are supporting Trump.
Do you consider changing everything that was posted to meet an argument you want to have good form?
Most people don't.
Who has said that?
Of course you dodge a probative question.
Your delusions dont impress me. Dump Trump, specifically, and we can talk.
Another dodge by you.
It is obvious that we have someone who wants DeSantis as the nominee but will vote for Trump if Trump secures the GOP nomination. Won't admit that, but it is obvious.
No dodge.The dodger is you, as you have yet to address the rest of my original post.
Face it...your only argument in your arsenal is that every conservative is a Trump defender/supporter, and the need to argue ONLY that overwhelms you.
Absolutely. Won't take long, either.
Don't give a shit, though. Anytime you see somebody say some perfectly legal thing is "unpatriotic" simply because they don't agree with it, you've found the real tyrants.
Ask me a specific question if you want an answer. Vague references are simply another form of dodging.
I asked you a specific question:
Do you consider voting for Trump for PotUS in 2024 an act of patriotism?
A legal act is not necessarily a patriotic act.
The only thing Trumpsters are victims of is their own ignorance.
Oh, he's a tyrant. Actions he's already taken make him one, with the two most egregious being the attempt to stay in power after losing the election, and the subversion of the Justice Department away from independence and toward loyalty to him personally. The latter goes all the way back to just a week after he was inaugurated, when he first met Comey, who got a serious impression that Trump was asking for some kind of pledge of loyalty. He treated his Attorneys General the same way, and to a large extent succeeded.
Hell, Trump's presidency made me wonder more than once if we shouldn't make the Justice Department a fourth branch of government, separated entirely from the Executive, with Attorney General becoming an elected office.
My first suggestion was that he be tried. Doesn't it go without saying that charges would preface that?
Ohhhhh... You're one of those.
Which is why I said, "wouldn't consider." Speaking of reading comprehension.
I'm happy to hear that you're not supporting Trump, at least for the time being. Thanks for making that clear.
People don't hate Trump because of Hillary. People hate Trump because of Trump.
And if your second purported reason is a reference to the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol, it was neither peaceful, nor patriotic. But I'm sure you know that.
Supporting whomever one wants wasn't the subject. Sorry if you were unaware.
Obviously. But the accusation could easily become so.
It surely hasn't escaped you that many of the very people you accuse have made similar erroneous accusations of their own toward Colin Kaepernick.
People far and wide accused CK of being unpatriotic .... for exercising the very rights guaranteed him by the Constitution his accusers claim to hold so dear.
Those accusations are ignorant nonsense, as are the ones leveled at Trump supporters.
The accusation itself, though, is problematic. Calling someone "unpatriotic" because they intend to engage in a behavior that is vital to the survival of our republic but in a way that you disapprove of attempts to shame them into suppressing that behavior.
It's the equivalent of saying "if you vote for XXX candidate, you just hate America". It implies (and John has previously stated openly) that "if you're not going to vote the way I want you to, you shouldn't vote."
That's how tyranny replaces self-governance. It's far more unpatriotic than the person who honestly believes Donald Trump is the best person to lead America, as misguided as you and I may believe that person to be.
"The only real Americans are people who vote like us."..... Of course it is.
You write as though you think it is unfair of me to note that those who continually defend / makes excuses for Trump are, collectively, the reason why Trump has influence today.
Why are you talking about CK with me? I will address what I write, not the myriad actions of others.
Again, focus on what I wrote (or engage someone else). I am saying that supporting Trump for PotUS is unpatriotic, irrational, and irresponsible. Do you personally hold that voting for Trump to hold the powers of the presidency is a patriotic act?
CK? Deflection . . .on top of endless others
Why not? Wasn't the KGB an arm of the Kremlin in the USSR?
If I recall (I could be wrong) but you were one of those. You and your buddy in this thread were just a few of those who wanted him kicked out of the NFL, his head shaved, tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Did I skip anything?
You are wrong on that.
I don't support his actions, but I don't consider them unpatriotic.
People either forget or don't understand a lot of key information when it comes to CK.
In all, I think the problem that kept him from actually accomplishing anything was simply a lack of maturity. He understood there was (still is) a problem, but he was not mature/wise enough to understand the power at his disposal or how to wield it.
That said, the accusations that he was somehow unpatriotic or unAmerican or whatever were the other side of the Coin of Complete Nonsense.
Yup, Barr was his consigliere. His resume was his Mueller 'synopsis'
lol
I certainly would not be surprised at that.
I stand corrected and I apologize
No worries. It's easy to confuse people sometimes, and there were certainly plenty calling him unAmerican.
I agree with all you say here, 1000%
Well said.
All involved in 1/6 have to be held accountable for contributing to that unprecedented nightmare.
Interesting that with Democrats in control of the White House, DoJ, and both houses of Congress for 2 years.... they didn't manage to even attempt any of these ideas.
Personally, I think it's taking far too long, but the last I heard an investigation was still in progress.
I suppose you think it should all just be swept under the rug and forgotten about? Yet another free pass for Teflon Don?
It's been well over 2 years, with the nearly limitless resources of the entire US Govt at their disposal.
As predicted. Didn't take long to be accused of supporting Trump simply because I pointed out problems with your views.
Serious question... are you able to understand that people can call Trump on his bullshit AND you on yours?
I think if it can be shown that Trump committed an actual crime, then he should be prosecuted. I also think that given the time and resources in question, they probably know right now whether or not they have enough to charge him.
However I can also see that Democrats have established a recognizable pattern for releasing information in the key moments when it is most beneficial or least damaging to them politically.
The best case scenario for Democrats is a Trump nomination followed by criminal charges, so if they can get the first, I would expect the second to follow shortly after the Republican convention.
Full disclosure, I have never voted for Trump and cannot currently imagine a scenario where I would. I voted for Biden in 2020, but will probably not do so again because I cannot currently imagine a scenario where an 82-year-old would stay healthy enough to finish a four-year term. If my choices are Biden or Trump, I would likely abstain from the presidential election and simply vote down-ballot.
Understandable. The worst choices in our history.
That's the way I feel
Abstaining from voting for president is the same thing as giving half a vote to Trump.
disagree. One must go with one's conscience
The D party needs to rise to the occasion and put forth a suitable candidate. Operating as PotUS at the age of 82 through 86 is absurd. And if Harris is his V.P. then matters are worsened.
I felt that way about HRC/Trump, also. And to Trout's point about conscience, I'm not willing to endorse any candidate I think would be unfit.
That said, I understand perfectly if you or Trout or anyone else believes that Trump represents such a significant threat it warrants voting for a candidate you know is also terrible. That's a decision made on your moral compass, and the process of each of us making our own decisions that way is a fundamental building block of our constitutional republic.
Whoever you vote for, it's not unpatriotic.
I really don't think I can vote for Biden. They were calling that ageism on the TV this morning because some democrats feel as I do. It's his age. It's a huge turn off. What if he goes senile in his 6th year and has to be 25th amendmentdized. Then you know who we'll be stuck with??? God forbid
eh. I dont have any big problem with Harris. She is no worse than most of the other 45 vice presidents we have had.
People who say they can't vote for Biden will get Trump elected, its as simple as that. We dont live in a perfect world but we shouldnt fool around with letting a traitor back in through the front door. Things could and would get a lot worse.
If you dont vote for Biden and Trump wins, you'll have Marjorie Taylor Greene or Tucker Carlson or Ron DeSantis as vice president. You dont want that do you?
This election is going to be either/or, not "neither".
I appreciate your point, but I disagree. Trump attempted to steal the presidency. No PotUS in US history has ever done anything remotely close to what Trump did in his Big Lie campaign. He is clearly willing to trash anyone, including the nation, to get what he personally wants. That is NOT an individual who should ever be allowed a position of political power much less the power of the presidency.
so you're telling me to hold my nose and vote
Donald Trump sat eating potato chips and watching tv as the Capitol building was under attack. This is not speculation, it is a known fact.
That is disqualifying, and if you dont think so there is something seriously wrong with you.
of course.
potato chips? I thought he was a Cheetos man?
I disagree. Trump will not win the general election.
Hard core Ds will vote for Biden (if he is the nominee). It is the more independent folks who are likely to abstain. Net, this will reduce the number of votes cast (for both candidates) but will not make a change in the win percentage.
Also, if the nominees are Biden and Trump, I predict a substantial reduction in voter turnout across the board. The Ds will not be very enthused, and short of the ridiculous MAGAs the Rs will also not be enthused with their nominee.
I say again, the D party (as with the GOP) has an obligation to put forth a suitable candidate. Nobody age 82 through 86 should be serving as the president of the USA. I am truly sick of dealing with crappy choices for the most important political office on the planet.
Wow, potato chips in the West Wing, disgusting.
But Jack thinks everyone's viewpoint about such things as stealing an election needs to be respected. They have a right to their opinion and no one should criticize them for it.
Donald Trump was presented with a plan to have Pence throw out the votes of swing states under the claim that the electoral votes of those states were "contested" (those electoral votes were not contested), and Trump approved of the plan. We can know that two ways, one is because a federal judge who reviewed the information said it was likely Trump and Eastman had committed a crime , and, because in his speech on Jan 6 morning Trump said there was still time for Pence to "do the right thing" and follow Eastman's plan.
Why didnt Trump try and stop the riot at the Capitol? Simple. He wanted it to succeed in stopping the electoral vote count.
Did you get your troll of the month badge yet?
He was eating something.
actually there have been 49 VPs of the US , some presidents had more than one .
FDR and Nixon both come to mind as having more than one over their times in office .
If people were allowed to cast half a vote for each candidate, and did so, it would be materially the same thing as not voting at all.
When people say I couldnt vote for either of them they are saying and doing the same thing as giving the candidate they find more odious half a vote.
So you think it is worth the risk of putting Trump back in in order to make a statement about one's own personal disapproval of both candidates ( the old "pox on both their houses" rationale)?
I dont think it is worth it at all.
Tired does not begin to describe how stale the inane questioning with no desire to address the issue, any issue.
It's not all of the known facts. We don't know what restrictions the Secret Service put in place. We don't know what reports Trump got along the way or from whom.
That's your opinion. Other people see it differently. Personally, it doesn't matter to me... I wasn't voting for him anyway.
Says the man who cannot tolerate a dissenting opinion without losing his shit. The irony is amazing here.
Look, we all know you have an irrational hatred of Trump that goes far beyond religious zealotry. You act like the man personally wronged you in some way and you can't get past it. Maybe he has, I dunno. That's your business.
But you don't get to enforce that onto other people. They're going to make up their own minds, and it doesn't mean something is "wrong with them" just because they fail to pass your doctrinal purity test.
I have a hunch the powers that be wont let Harris remain on the ticket , i have also read news reports joe isnt happy with how she has done her job , but things change so her ascending in the 6th year are remote .
its still early , both candidates people are talking about right now can stroke out and be considered a liability(I think both are anyway ) by the time the primaries and the general roll around , or they could just die .
either way im waiting for things to actually happen to see who is on the ballot for the general .
Don't misrepresent me.
If Harris is replaced then I will be looking intently at who he runs with. It could change my vote
Then vote your conscience and let other people vote theirs.
You really need to read the Jan 6th committee testimony and report, because you dont know what you are talking about.
Trump did NOTHING to try and end the violence at the Capitol, even though he was aware of it because he was watching it on television. This is not a guess, it is a fact attested to by numerous people who were there with him in the oval office that day. His own staff.
There is no record, none, of anyone in government saying or testifying that Trump ordered any additional law enforcement to the Capitol. Eventually Pence had to call for National Guard.
You are not part of the solution Jack, you are part of the problem.
Gavin Newsome of California .......That one comes to mind .
And he does have a track record as a governor to be looked at ......
I have no power to stop anyone from voting whatever way they want. If they want to vote for a known traitor to be president of the United States its between them and their conscience and their god.
No, friends don't let friends vote MAGA...
How do you know how your friends vote?
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado...
You're not paying attention. Read my comment again.
So anybody who doesn't agree with you is "part of the problem". Riiiiight.
Don't question. Don't deliberate. Don't attempt to look at things objectively. Do not give anyone cause to doubt your loyalty to the cause. Agree and comply or you are "part of the problem".
The utterly stupid but unsurprising thing here is that you don't see how fucked up that is.
Same here.
If you consider Trump to be a traitor based on his actions (most notably those of his Big Lie campaign such as suborning his V.P. to table certified state votes in an attempt (stupidly) to steal the presidency through a plurality of remaining votes) would you consider voting for a traitor to be patriotic?
I suspect Jack knows this, but I wonder about many others. Trump's intentions seem quite obvious to me.
John, they are reducing the number of votes cast. The denominator (All Votes) is smaller in the vote percentage equations. That is all.
D% = D votes / All Votes
R% = R votes / All Votes
You have a point in the case where someone who would have voted for Biden decides to not do so (for whatever reason). That is a net change.
But if someone has no intention of voting for Biden, not voting for Biden makes no difference in Biden's percentage.
You can legitimately make the argument that abstaining is allowing the balance of the electorate to decide who will be PotUS. That argument is sound IMO.
No, who is supposed to send it to me?
I don't think Trump supporters consider him to be a traitor. Keep in mind, for all the investigations, he hasn't been charged with anything Jan 6 related. That lends credit to their idea that he fought as hard as he legally could to keep the WH.
In their minds, if he were actually guilty of a crime he would have been charged and tried by now. They have a point, BTW.
Personally, I wouldn't vote for him before all that, so it makes zero difference to my voting decision.
This is not a problem that requires math equations. You could also say that someone who doesnt vote is equivalent, in the election, to someone who has never been born. So what? We are talking about people who are going to vote, they are just not going to vote on the presidential line. The practical effect of that is no different than if they gave a half vote to both candidates. There will be people who will say " I cant vote for Trump, he's a traitor". And then they will say, "I am not comfortable with Biden either, so I just wont vote and thus I wont be helping either of them". Unless you think Biden is exactly as bad or worse than Trump , and you dont vote for him or dont vote for president at all, you are in effect giving half a vote to the person you think is worse.
Lets say there have been 100 people vote and 50% went for Biden and 50% went for Trump. And then you come along and you vote 1/2 vote for each. Now 101 people have voted and it is still 50% for Biden and 50% for Trump. Now lets say you dont vote for president. The tally is still 50% for Biden and 50% for Trump.
I think I'm more willing than most to accept the idea that there is a gargantuan body of information we haven't seen.
We don't know what we don't know, but I believe we should suspect there is a lot of it.
Personally, I view Trump in the LBJ/Nixon category when it comes to trustworthiness. Like those two, I trust him to act in his own interest and fuck everybody else. So I won't be surprised at pretty much whatever we learn... and I also won't be surprised if we never learn anything because any mitigating information is withheld.
But I think we forget that when rioters in Seattle took over a section of downtown and declared independence from the United States, officials sat there and did nothing for a month while residents were extorted, at least one was raped and at least one was killed.
So the precedent for a sort of 'hands off' de-escalation tactic was already in place.
Now, that gives Trump a benefit of the doubt he probably doesn't deserve, but it seems hypocritical to hold one leader responsible and excuse another entirely.
Projection, deflection, denial - all you have.
I’m glad that you feel you can participate.
Maybe Trump should run for mayor of Seattle.
That would be hilarious, actually.
Can you imagine the reality TV?
I fully respect voting one's conscience. And I do not think the tiny risk of Trump winning warrants concern.
But let's move forward to a hypothetical situation where Trump has a chance to win. Then I think you would see conscientious voters executing a vote against Trump (even if that means voting for someone they do not believe should be PotUS).
Purple hair is also fashionable here with some folks.
There is excellent beer In Seattle.
Not sure what it takes then to convince you that Trump tried to steal a presidential election by undermining the electoral process and engaging public energy through blatant lies (as PotUS).
Criminal guilt is not a prerequisite to determine, as a voter, that someone is a traitor. It is sad that some choose to allow the action/inaction of the criminal justice system + politics determine their opinion on a matter. With respect to Trump, we have all seen what he said and did. Just the publicly available information is enough for me to recognize that Trump attempted to steal the election through lies, coercion and attempted unconstitutional (and unethical) acts such as suborning Pence to table certified votes. This is not rumor, this much we all know. After all, to this day, Trump is claiming that Biden is an illegitimate PotUS and that the USA electoral system is corrupt.
We can assume Trump doesnt have a chance to win, but once he is the nominee he will have a chance to win, anyone would.
What if the economy gets worse halfway through 2024? What if "antifa" takes over a city where there is a blue state governor? What if it is shown in Oct of 2024 that Hunter Biden accepted money from the Chinese communists?
The media will immediately say the race is up for grabs.
Never has to mean never, and I am worried that for a lot of people, including some independents, never doesnt necessarily mean never.
Indeed
Giving any fraction of a vote from 0 to 1 to both candidates is identical to abstaining. It is letting others decide. That is all.
As I noted, if Trump has a chance to win then I can see people who would abstain stepping in and voting against Trump. But if Trump has virtually no chance of winning (and I think that is and will be the case) then people are free to vote their conscience (and abstaining might be their choice).
Yes. That is exactly correct.
Now, repeating what I wrote, if there is a chance for anything close to 50:50 then I think people should vote against Trump. If, however, it is something like 40:60 then I can respect those who abstain.
No way, we have the anti-inflation act.
Who cares, let them have Portland.
No surprise there.
But, but, but - the situation in Seattle gives the former 'president' a benefit of doubt that he probably doesn't deserve don't you know?
What the Fuck Seattle has to do with 1/6 I'd like to know.
The denial and defense of the indefensible is beyond ridiculous
I do not see that to be likely, Jack. Just take the Pence scheme alone. That is sufficient (for me) to recognize that Trump does not care about what is right but only what he wants; that Trump will violate the CotUS, trash the US system, etc. to get his way. Trump should never be allowed any political power.
Yup. Trump, however, is far worse.
No, I do not in any way buy the idea that because hands off was used somewhere else that Trump acted responsibly in refusing to intercede in spite of pleas from family, friends and advisors. I am surprised (truly) that you offered this.
Agree on the first part, disagree on the balance.
It makes a very big difference given the PotUS would be between the ages of 82 and 86.
Not sure what it takes to convince you that I refer to Trump supporters in the third person because I'm not one.
In the absence of criminal guilt, we're left with partisan accusations from people with a lot to gain personally. They've accused so many of so much so often that their credibility is in tatters. We've heard everything from "Trump withheld aid to Ukraine" to "Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist"...and none of it was actually true.
So now these same people are back again with more accusations, more to gain personally, low credibility, and still no actual charges from any independent body. They make it very easy to believe the "partisan witch hunt" theory.
Trump as the nominee has a chance to win. Of course, there is some small chance. So if the likelihood is close to 50:50, I would seek to persuade abstainers to vote against Trump. If he is simply the joke candidate from the GOP (which is what I expect) then I can respect the choice to abstain.
Spin is not reality.
Ultimately, people will vote or not vote as they see fit.
I know. And I don't expect we're going to agree on that point. You are more trusting than I am, and that's fine.
Which, in and of itself, does not make one a "traitor". It does make one a narcissist, as I understand the definition.
If he's done that, they should charge him.
I've been saying that since 2014. But let's face it, that describes a lot of people. It doesn't make them "traitors".
Why did you write this? I know you did not and will not vote for Trump. I was responding to your suggestion that a lot of evidence remains and thus the implication that possibly Trump did NOT do what we all pretty much know he did do.
As I see things, we are left as individuals with the ability (and right) to make judgment calls and to execute those calls with our votes.
This is the kind of b.s. we are dealing with. It is a waste of time.
In what am I trusting? I think I have told you directly on several occasions that my position is based on what I have observed. Who am I trusting? Okay, well sure, I trust that the videos I have seen of Trump were not deep fakes, etc. But other than extreme notions like that, who do you think I am trusting?
That one sentence you quoted is in no way my complete argument.
We agree on that.
It is not my argument that a person who should not hold office is ipso facto a traitor. You dislike it when people misrepresent you. I feel the same way.
Except as 2016 showed us we really can't trust polling. Polls gave HRC an almost insurmountable lead right up to the last week when her numbers started dropping. But by then how much of the early voting was already done?
Irrelevant.
Every voter will determine the likelihood of Trump being elected by whatever means they feel is best.
The point I made is that if a voter who does not want Trump as PotUS believes that Trump has a chance of winning then it makes sense for that voter to vote against Trump. If, however, that voter believes Trump has no real chance and they do not see the D candidate as having earned their vote then it makes sense that they abstain.
Also, in 2016 Trump was very much in the running. I personally believed he had a chance to pull it off in 2016 as a come from behind win. I expect, if he is the GOP nominee, that his chances of winning will be very low in 2024. That is, I expect that I would even bet $$ on him losing.
Dont forget , as of july 1st hard drug( like heroin and other opiates ) use becomes legal there for recreational use .
some of those that partake will make videos of the people of walmart look tame , but hey it could lead to a Bee Gees saturday night fever music revival .
We've discussed this. You are trusting that the people who have provided the information you've seen have not withheld material information that contradicts what they want you to believe. I don't. I believe that the simplest explanation for the lack of charges is the existence of mitigating information that would render a conviction impossible, but that congressional democrats elected to omit.
You responded to my descriptions of Trump supporters with a question for me personally, as though I were part of that group.
I agree.
On one hand, I'm pro drug legalization. If people want to destroy themselves with a needle and a spoon, that's their business and it is not the place of government to deny them that right or to nanny them.
On the other hand, several cities would likely be overrun with the bodies of junkies to the point where nobody could function. The homeless encampments and shoplifting are bad enough already. Imagine the chaos if half those people were on meth or heroin.
That would be a good choice IMO
I think the likelihood that there is some wealth of hidden evidence that shows Trump did not lie to the world that the USA electoral system was corrupt (rigged), that Biden is an illegitimate PotUS, that his supporters were disenfranchised, that he did not actually have the conversation with Raffensperger that we all could hear, that he did not try to coerce Rusty Bowers to deliver a set of fake electors, that he did not suborn Pence to table select certified election results so that he could (absurdly) win by proxy, etc. is extremely unlikely.
Further, it is unlikely that there is a secret reason as to why Trump could throw Pence under the bus via tweet in the middle (90 minutes) of the insurrection (we all saw the tweet) yet in spite of pleas from family, friend and advisors Trump did not lift a finger to dissuade his supporters from a violent breaking and entering of the capitol building for three hours.
This is not a situation of trusting what people are saying. We saw much of this ourselves play out in real time and saw testimony under oath by high-ranking Republican operatives.
I think it is quite unlikely that all we have seen is fabricated and that Trump really was working in the best interest of the nation.
I would never intentionally imply that you are a Trump supporter. I have always believed you when you stated that you did not vote for Trump and I do indeed believe that you will not vote for him in 2024. That said, you often defend Trump supporters. If anything, my implication would be that.
We don't need to hash this out for the millionth time.
You don't think important information has been withheld. I see no possible scenario in which it hasn't.
Ergo, you are more trusting than I am.
That's probably a fair assessment. Thanks for the clarification.
Trump has not even remotely offered an explanation for any of his actions after the 2020 election, that I know of, other than to say his phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State (which he is likely to be indicted for, was "perfect".)
The Jan 6th committee subpoenaed him , which he ignored.
I dont know what exculpatory information could be being withheld, but he has had a million chances to explain himself and hasnt even tried.
You dont just trust Trump, you have faith in him.
Not quite. I think the likelihood of new information that would materially change the scenario we all saw unfold before our eyes is small.
'Trust' has nothing to do with this.
Exactly. We don't know what we don't know.
Why would he? What does he have to gain by doing so?
He's a narcissist. He doesn't give a shit what you think of him.
Right. Sure. Anybody who doesn't want to lynch the man must be secretly wearing a MAGA hat. *eyeroll*
I'm not sure what he's done to you personally that makes you lose all sanity when his name appears.
It doesn't seem like some of the lefties on here don't believe in the presumption of innocence or due process.
Or understand how a representative republic is supposed to work. They certainly don't know how a democracy is supposed to function.
And they have the audacity to call themselves patriots. Too funny.
As I have said many times previously I wish DeSantis to be the nominee, and perhaps Haley as VP.
But come election day I will fill in the Republican oval..whosever name is there.
Yup, you will vote for Trump if he is the GOP nominee. You are not alone and that is what gives Trump his power.
If Trump secures the nomination he will almost certainly lose the general. And then yet again the GOP has allowed Trump to damage it.
How can some be so blind?