Defending Trump

  
By:  TᵢG  •  2 weeks ago  •  444 comments


Defending Trump
Keep defending Trump and he will secure the plurality and become the GoP nominee.    He will then lose the general election and you will have accomplished what you fear most — putting a D back in the oval office.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers


Trump has announced his candidacy.   He is yet again running for PotUS.   He seeks the GoP nomination.

Most people recognize that Trump will likely lose in a general election.    Thus if the GoP nominates Trump they will ipso facto place the D nominee in the oval office.

Hard to imagine that a GoP member would want that to occur.    Yet for some unknown reason, many GoP members take actions that make that a possibility;  they continue to excuse Trump's misdeeds and run interference for negative actions taken against Trump.

Trump can become the GoP nominee the same way he did it in 2016 — by achieving a plurality of the votes.   That is not a high bar, especially given Trump's extant base of supporters.

So here is the question, given the GoP nomination is within real reach of Trump and given that Trump will almost certainly lose in the general election and deliver the presidency to the D nominee, why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?

Keep defending Trump and he will secure the plurality and become the GoP nominee.   
He will then lose the general election and you will have accomplished what you fear most — putting a D back in the oval office.


Article is LOCKED by moderator [TᵢG]
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  author  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Given the GoP nomination is within real reach of Trump and given that Trump will almost certainly lose in the general election and deliver the presidency to the D nominee, why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

fear of being shunned. there's a lot of examples of what happens when somebody runs contrary to the maga cult.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

Death wish.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    2 weeks ago

Seems cultish to me.   Not unusual for our species.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago
why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?

They spent 6+ years defending him.  Old habits are hard to break.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3    2 weeks ago

they would rather circle the globe in the opposite direction rather than cross the street by admitting they made a mistake. deny, deny, deny, deflect. zero accountability and zero responsibility.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Here is a thought, he has no intention of running for office and will withdraw before the election, in the meantime, he will keep milking the MAGA suckers for money. 

It was reported that he has signed licensing agreements with foreign governments, SA for one which will once again create a problem if he runs in the general election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @2    2 weeks ago

Trump will run, because his malignant narcissism demands it. He is mentally ill in that sense. As far as all his conflicts etc, he will try and tie them up in court until after the 24 election , and then if he wins he will blow them off. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3  Ronin2    2 weeks ago

Keep ignoring the rule of law and the Constitution; and the [deleted] Democrats will already have won.

It isn't Republicans keeping Trump front and center.

It is Brandon, Democrats, and the most partisan DOJ in history.  They can't beat anyone else. They know it. They sycophants in the media know it. So do most of their TDS driven followers; though they will never admit- because to do so would mean having to admit they created Trump- and are keeping him alive.  

"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!!"

Take a look at the damage the [deleted] Democrats have done to the country in just two years of running the show. Yet somehow people voted to keep them in power. Inflation; high gas prices; rampant crime; a wide open border with record numbers of illegal immigrants, drugs, and gang members coming across it; and a looming recession. None of that mattered. What did was the president of the US threatening to use the US military against those that disagreed with him- not once; but twice. The fear mongering Brandon generated in those two speeches was worthy of any tin horn dictator. 

Democrats have weaponized the IRS, FBI, and DOJ against their opponents. 

Go ahead and bring down Trump by any means necessary. Just remember once he is gone who is next? When is the point of no return going to be crossed? Who will it be that the Democrat machine comes for that the US people finally say "enough!". Will it even make a difference if the Democrats get their way an nationalize elections (violating the Constitution; grant amnesty to illegals (not because they care for them; but because they need their votes to stay in power); do away with the Electoral College; pack the Supreme Court; and end the filibuster).

"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!!"

Pathetic as always. "Keep all eyes on Trump! Watch Trump! Trump and his followers are out to ruin America!"

[deleted] Democrats are counting on continued voter stupidity. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago
Democrats are counting on continued voter stupidity.

the collective dreck of your entire comment is an excellent example...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago
It isn't Republicans keeping Trump front and center.

Well that's total bullshit. The Republican party has continued to kneel before their naked Emperor which is why there were hundreds of Trump backed candidates in the mid-term. Did they largely get rejected by independents? Yes, but there wouldn't have been hundreds of Republican candidates begging for Trumps endorsement if there weren't millions of Republican voters still enamored by the Mango Mussolini.

It is Brandon, Democrats, and the most partisan DOJ in history.

More bullshit without a lick of truth to it, just pure partisan fantasy.

The rest of your comment is just more of the same along with some added insane conspiracy theories and is not even worth responding to, just lies coated with bullshit inserted in Qanon conspiracy theories, like a 'Turduckin' of flawed conservative fantasy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2    2 weeks ago
"Well that's total bullshit."

That's absolutely all some here have.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2    2 weeks ago
Well that's total bullshit.

Except it completely isn't.  

Or have you already forgotten about this Jan 6 committee?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
Or have you already forgotten about this Jan 6 committee?

Do you really believe that Trumps loyal base of voters and his decision to announce another run for President was affected by the January 6th committee? Seriously?

If Democrats never mentioned Trump again, he would still hold massive sway over the Republican party regardless of whether you're a Republican who has finally ditched Trump. Trumps actions are what is keeping him "front and center". His choice to lie about the 2020 election. His choice to incite an attempted insurrection and get his loyalists to stop the peaceful transfer of power and install him as 'Leader' of America. His choice to take classified documents then refuse to return them and lie about them to the archives.

So yes, claiming Democrats are responsible for Trump is total bullshit. Trump and his obsequies ass kissing Republicans and their rightwing white Christian conservative fascist base are the only ones to blame.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.2.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

“So yes, claiming Democrats are responsible for Trump is total bullshit.”

After all, who is the only announced candidate for the 2024 election? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
Do you really believe that Trumps loyal base of voters and his decision to announce another run for President was affected by the January 6th committee? Seriously?

The loyalty of his core voters has definitely been increased by the Jan 6 hearings, just like the Lewinsky hearings galvanized Clinton's faithful supporters.  

If Democrats never mentioned Trump again, he would still hold massive sway over the Republican party regardless of whether you're a Republican who has finally ditched Trump.

The math disagrees with you.  DeSantis has gained 12 points on him in the polls since election day.  

I need to remind you that DeSantis is not actually in the race.  So Trump is losing significant ground to a person who is..... wait for it........ not. running. for. president.

Trumps actions are what is keeping him "front and center".

Riiiiight.  It must have been Trump who scheduled all those primetime televised hearings.

So yes, claiming Democrats are responsible for Trump is total bullshit.

I'm sure you think so.  You have a pretty well-documented history of getting defensive anytime anybody suggests a Democrat has done something wrong, so it's certainly no surprise that you'd repeat that pattern here.

But I bet you watched those hearings.  I bet you saw allllll those Democrats on TV talking about Trump without him even in the room.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.2.6  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Yes yes that is all you have?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.2.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
The loyalty of his core voters has definitely been increased by the Jan 6 hearings

Bullshit. They just had another chance to voice their support and whine about bullshit conspiracy theories they have exactly zero evidence of, from election fraud to some fantasy liberal 'deep state' that has it out for their 'Dear Leader'. 

The math disagrees with you.  DeSantis has gained 12 points on him in the polls since election day.

I never said Trump didn't lose any support, I'm saying his loyal, roughly, 47% of the Republican party continue to support him while only 46% oppose him running for a second term.  That is a majority of the Republican party, even though slim. Claiming Democrats should just ignore the guy who has the support of a majority of the Republican party is frankly insane.

According to the poll, which has a margin of error of 3.5 percent, 47 percent of Republican and conservative-leaning independent respondents said that they support Trump as the prospective party nominee in 2024 , while 46 percent oppose the idea.

Trump's Republican Support Plummets by 20 Points, New Poll Shows (newsweek.com)

So Trump is losing significant ground to a person who is..... wait for it........ not. running. for. president.

You can define a candidate that has gone from 99% support to 98% support as "losing ground", should that make their opponents relieved to the point they should ignore the candidate with majority support?

You have a pretty well-documented history of getting defensive anytime anybody suggests a Democrat has done something wrong

More bullshit. Please do list those posts of mine that claim Democrats can do no wrong. I have been clear about my votes pre-Bush Jr., I did not vote for Clinton in '92 or '96. I have not been a lifelong Democrat. I believe in strong borders, but also that we should treat undocumented immigrants as humans and not a virus. I believe in a strong US military to defend ourselves from the global threats of the 21st century and into the future. I believe in the 2nd amendment but agree with former Justice Scalia that those rights are not "unlimited" and should have sensible laws and an emphasis on gun safety.

Do I get frustrated by some of the loony far left Democrats who talk about fringe ideas like amnesty for all undocumented immigrants or support those who turned peaceful protests into riots or felt they were justified in committing violence, vandalism and looting? Of course, those aren't the liberals, progressives and Democrats I know, they are a fringe edge of the party. Those who actually believe that shit are an extreme minority of the Democrat party unlike the majority of the Republican party who continue to believe in a blatant lie of election fraud and ridiculous Qanon conspiracy theories.

In poll after poll, about 70% of Republicans say they don’t think Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

Most Republicans still falsely believe Trump’s stolen election claims. Here are some reasons why. - Poynter

Some 56% of Republicans believe that QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory, is mostly or partly true

Majority Of Republicans Believe The QAnon Conspiracy Theory Is Partly Or Mostly True, Survey Finds (forbes.com)

But I bet you watched those hearings.

Yes, I did. Does that mean any of the facts presented along with what I saw with my own eyes on January 6th and the overwhelming evidence presented was fake?

I bet you saw allllll those Democrats on TV talking about Trump without him even in the room.

What the fuck does having Trump in the room or not have to do with whether the facts presented, the texts, the video, the criminally delayed response from the President after his staff was literally begging for him to call off the insurrection, have to do with the actual facts presented? Also, there were Republicans there presenting much of that evidence. Should having him there pleading the fifth hundreds of times somehow proven him innocent of what we all saw with our own eyes? Really? Only those who have their heads stuffed up that tangerine tyrant's ass are pardoning him of his fucking insanity and attempted insurrection.

If the January 6th insurrection had been successful, if they had blocked the certification and installed Trump as President, is that what it would have taken for the Republican party to wake up and scream "No! That's not how our country was founded, That is against our constitution and our nations founding's! We will never support such an illegal takeover of the American government!". Of course not, all the fucking spineless wastes of space would be inventing all sorts of defenses for the 'New Trumpublican Regime' they helped into power by either directly supporting or at a minimum turning a blind eye.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago

This is not a 'But Trump ...' article in any stretch of the imagination so your comment is nothing but emotive nonsense.   I suggest you tone down your emotions and turn up the volume on critical thinking.

Do you think it is wise for GoP members to defend Trump and, in so doing, enable him to secure the GoP nomination?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    2 weeks ago
Do you think it is wise for GoP members to defend Trump

That's not as simple a question as you like to make it seem.

There are an idiotic number of ridiculous and unfounded accusations directed at Trump.  Is it wise to identify them as such?  Yes, because the precedent of hive-mind acceptance of stupid accusations is incredibly dangerous to any free society.

Is that usually attacked as "defending Trump"?  Also yes.  

It is no small problem in general that 6+ years of continual accusations have rendered them meaningless and destroyed the accusers' credibility.  You simply can't cry wolf that often for that long and expect anybody to still believe you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.1    2 weeks ago
That's not as simple a question as you like to make it seem.

Sure it is.   I am talking the Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI documents.    This article (and this should be obvious) is not focused on the myriad trivial political accusations against Trump such as the prostitute-pee rumor.   

I chose not to spell out the most glaring, big issues problems with Trump since I figured this would be obvious by now.    So this is what I am talking about people defending:

Trump is a former PotUS who tried to steal a US election:

  • claimed that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system
  • agitated his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised
  • tried to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)
  • tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • tried  to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors
  • tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states
  • encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)
  • tweeted that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection
  • refused to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours

Trump also violated the PRA and held TS/SCI documents at his home (obviously compromising national security) and, apparently, resisted full cooperation with the National Archives to ensure their safe return.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 weeks ago
I am talking the Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI documents.    This article (and this should be obvious) is not focused on the myriad trivial political accusations against Trump such as the prostitute-pee rumor.   

"Collusion".  "Attempted blackmail" of Ukraine.  "Racism".   I'm not sure I'd consider those "trivial".

I chose not to spell out the most glaring, big issues problems with Trump since I figured this would be obvious by now. 

Why would those be the "most glaring"?  He was literally impeached for items not on your list.

That's the point, BTW.  The ubiquitous din of accusation renders them all less meaningful.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.3    2 weeks ago
"Collusion".  "Attempted blackmail" of Ukraine.  "Racism".   I'm not sure I'd consider those "trivial".

Again, I am talking about the Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI documents.   Would you defend Trump's actions in the Big Lie campaign or his taking of TS/SCI documents (compromising national security) and not fully cooperating immediately on their safe return?

Why would those be the "most glaring"?

Seriously Jack?   They are the last major wrongdoings of Trump as PotUS.   They are both profound and distinctive in history.  No former PotUS has violated the PRA and certainly none have failed to cooperate to secure national security (especially with TS/SCI documents).   And no PotUS (or even candidate) has ever attempted to steal a US presidential election ... and none (even Nixon) have come close to what Trump attempted in the Big Lie.   

Do you think it is good for the GoP to have people run interference for Trump as you are currently doing?   The more people who seek to muddy / downplay Trump's wrongdoing, the more likely he is to be a real challenger for the nomination.   Imagine nominating an individual for PotUS who attempted to steal the last election.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.5  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 weeks ago
Sure it is.

I have to disagree. Along with Jack's point, for many people it isn't all that much about Trump. It's where the Left is taking us that matters more. Think Gavin Newsom running on the Dem ticket. That scares the crap out of a lot of people on the right and some in the center. That is, it is hard to convince people to focus on the dog who tore up the cushions when the house is on fire. Especially when doing so would mean (to them) letting the guy who set the fire keep setting them. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.5    2 weeks ago

The point of this article is that people defending Trump (in particular against his Big Lie campaign where he attempted to steal the 2020 election) and his taking of TS/SCI documents are enabling Trump to potentially secure the nomination.   

This article is about the GoP nomination.   So focus on that.

Do you want Trump to be the GoP nominee?   He certainly has a chance to do that.   Do you disagree that providing cover for Trump improves his chances for achieving plurality and taking the one spot the GoP has for PotUS in 2024?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.7  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    2 weeks ago
This article is about the GoP nomination.   So focus on that.

I did. What you are attempting is to get everyone to ignore all else save how you want them to look at it. But really, all you're doing here is asking "do you really want this guy in office?" I'm telling you why it isn't that simple. 

Do you want Trump to be the GoP nominee?

Honestly, I'm not sure I care anymore. I think the system is so corrupt that it won't matter much who is president. All it will be is the same useless partisanship fighting and cycle of revenge politics while the country deteriorates around us. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.7    2 weeks ago
What you are attempting is to get everyone to ignore all else save how you want them to look at it.

What?!   This is (intentionally) a very brief article that poses a very obvious problem:  Trump has a chance to secure the GoP nomination and those who defend his Big Lie and TS/SCI behavior are enabling him.

But really, all you're doing here is asking "do you really want this guy in office?" I'm telling you why it isn't that simple. 

Yes, it is that simple unless you think that Trump is a good general election candidate for the GoP.   Do you?   Do you actually think Trump as the GoP nominee is a strong move?   If you want to counteract the D party, you would want a strong GoP candidate, right?

So tell me, do you think Trump could win a general election ... do you think that he is anything even close to the GoP's best general election candidate?   If so, please explain this to me.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.9  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    2 weeks ago

I think you have conclusive proof on this seed that conservatives dont give a fuck if Trump is a traitor. 

10 years ago such a thing would be unthinkable (giving a pass to a president who tried to steal a presidential election).  Right wing media has ruined a lot of these peoples ability to think straight. 

Not to toot my own horn too much, but I have been predicting all this for years. 

The larger (non trumpster) society in America is a little complicit for not paying attention to these trends until the last 2 years (post jan 6). 

It is not only possible that Trump will be the 2024 GOP nominee, one could fairly easily make the case that he is the likely nominee. Yet is is virtually impossible to find a conservative (outside of the already never Trumpers) who will now say that Trump is unfit for office and disqualified from serving. It is absolutely amazing. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.9    2 weeks ago
I think you have conclusive proof on this seed that conservatives dont give a fuck if Trump is a traitor. 

Some I suppose do not.    Note also, John, that a number simply like to be contrary ... just like to argue for the sake of argument.   

10 years ago such a thing would be unthinkable (giving a pass to a president who tried to steal a presidential election). 

I know, incredible.   And worse, Trump has lowered the bar for all politicians.   Now it is not so outrageous to call an election "rigged".

Not to toot my own horn too much, but I have been predicting all this for years. 

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg    I think we all know that.

The larger (non trumpster) society in America is a little complicit for not paying attention to these trends until the last 2 years (post jan 6). 

The Big Lie campaign is a major milestone.   Much of modern politics is so slimy and divisive, I think many (most?) people tune out or simply relegate it to ' just politics '.    What Trump did in his Big Lie campaign was distinctive and profound — never in our history has a sitting PotUS tried to steal a US presidential election.   It is unheard of.   It is one thing to ignore investigations of prostitute pee but this outrageous act by a sitting PotUS should easily convince everyone that Trump should never hold a public office ... much less PotUS.

It is not only possible that Trump will be the 2024 GOP nominee, one could fairly easily make the case that he is the likely nominee. Yet is is virtually impossible to find a conservative (outside of the already never Trumpers) who will now say that Trump is unfit for office and disqualified from serving. It is absolutely amazing. 

I have different words for that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.11  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.10    2 weeks ago
 It is one thing to ignore investigations of prostitute pee but this outrageous act by a sitting PotUS should easily convince everyone that Trump should never hold a public office ... much less PotUS.

I know this is an argument, but it was known before the 2016 election that Trump was a proven liar, crook, bigot moron and cheat.  The mainstream media failed the country in 2016 by making the election a "horse race" and creating the pretense that Trump was fit for office. He has never been fit. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.12  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    2 weeks ago
Yes, it is that simple unless you think that Trump is a good general election candidate for the GoP.   Do you?   Do you actually think Trump as the GoP nominee is a strong move?   If you want to counteract the D party, you would want a strong GoP candidate, right?

Honestly, I don't know. I think the midterms may have changed more than a few minds about Trump but I don't know to what extent. So, would DeSantis fit the bill as a "strong GoP candidate?"

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.11    2 weeks ago

The problem is that Trump was not so different from the average politician in terms of integrity.   The US electorate has a rather sour view of our elected officials (justifiably).   

Trump's Big Lie campaign ... his attempt to steal the election ... is profoundly distinctive.   He no longer is one of many, he stands alone with glaring lights.  There is no excuse for considering him as a candidate for PotUS.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.12    2 weeks ago
Honestly, I don't know. I think the midterms may have changed more than a few minds about Trump but I don't know to what extent. So, would DeSantis fit the bill as a "strong GoP candidate?"

Drakk, you are blowing my mind.   I assume you are not simply arguing to be obnoxious and actually are being honest.   With that assumption, I cannot imagine how you could not be 100% convinced that Trump should never hold the office of PotUS.   He should not even be a consideration ... for cause.

As for DeSantis, I think he is the strongest current GoP candidate.   He is, IMO, the most likely individual to challenge Trump for the nomination.

Thus, if the GoP were thinking (which seems to not be the case), the GoP would be rallying around DeSantis and pushing Trump aside.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.15  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.13    2 weeks ago
The problem is that Trump was not so different from the average politician in terms of integrity. 

I dont think that is true, although I would admit that many people didnt know the extent of Trumps ethical lapses. 

Before 2026 election it was known that Trump had partaken in the scam known as Trump University. This should have disqualified him.  It was known that he had lent his name to ponzi schemes. It was known that he used bankruptcy to enrich himself and cheat his casino investors. It was known that Trump had promoted the racist lie of "birtherism". In and of itself this should have disqualified Trump for the presidency in peoples minds. Before 2016 it was known that the Trump condo business had lied about sales of units in condo projects in order to attract additional buyers. There is a lot more but I will leave it at that for here and now. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.15    2 weeks ago

None of that compares to a sitting PotUS attempting to steal a US presidential election — especially to the level that Trump took it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.17  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.16    2 weeks ago

I suppose so, but he was never fit for office, not for one minute, and it should have been part of the coverage of his candidacy in 2016 in the mainstream media, and it wasnt. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.3.18  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.14    2 weeks ago
Drakk, you are blowing my mind.   I assume you are not simply arguing to be obnoxious and actually are being honest.

Then you would be correct. There is a lot about my view I'm not explaining as I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion. 

With that assumption, I cannot imagine how you could not be 100% convinced that Trump should never hold the office of PotUS.   He should not even be a consideration ... for cause.

Yeah, and I feel pretty much the same way about most of our Federal government. Biden, in my opinion, should be impeached simply for dereliction of duty at the border all by itself, let alone other things he's done. Then, a sitting President gave the Red speech, choreographed as if were made in the Soviet Union and pretty much called half of America traitors and threats to democracy. You get that, don't you? A sitting President of the United States threw the full authority of the office behind calling Americans traitors because they weren't part of his ideology. 

So, yeah, in a better America, Trump would be an easy decision on personality alone. But that isn't the America we have. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.3.18    2 weeks ago
I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion. 

LOL, not sure how this could become a religious discussion.

Biden, ...

I very much hope that Biden will not run.   

But right now, this article focuses on what the GoP is going to do with its Trump problem.   The GoP cannot control what the Ds do but they certainly can clean up their own house.   

So no matter who is running for PotUS on the D side, it is bad for the GoP for Trump to have the possibility of securing the nomination.

Surely you agree with that.

Stated differently, and personally, if Biden runs for reelection I want an alternative to vote for.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.17    2 weeks ago
and it should have been part of the coverage of his candidacy in 2016 in the mainstream

What in the world are you talking about?  After MSM outlets like Morning  Joe pushed his candidacy during the primaries,  the media was 100% anti- Trump once he clinched the nomination. It's impossible to imagine a press posture that was more anti-trump without straight out broadcasting Democratic party commercials "as news."

It's amazing to me that the media field is so obviously overwhelmingly  tilted in favor of Democrats and yet they still whine and demand even more meddling on their behalf.   No wonder the idea of twitter not being a propaganda machine for them has spooked them so badly. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.21  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    2 weeks ago
The point of this article is that people defending Trump (in particular against his Big Lie campaign where he attempted to steal the 2020 election) and his taking of TS/SCI documents are enabling Trump to potentially secure the nomination.

How many people do you actually think are defending those actions?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.22  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.4    2 weeks ago
Do you think it is good for the GoP to have people run interference for Trump as you are currently doing?

That didn't take long.  The hive-mind is getting quicker.

Exactly two posts into the conversation and you're accusing me of defending Trump when all I've really done is point out that the issue is larger than you want to admit it is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.22    2 weeks ago

Real simple Jack.   This article posits that Trump has a chance to secure the GoP nomination and that would be bad for the GoP.

If you agree that a Trump nomination would be bad for the GoP then the obvious course of action would be to work to see that someone else is nominated.

How does 'but look at all the unfair things they did to Trump during his presidency' (and equivalent) help to keep Trump from the nomination?   It does not;  it serves to support him.   Arguments that effectively paint Trump as a victim have been taking place for years and serve to shore up Trump support.

The GoP needs to get out of that mode and simply detach from Trump.    Stop making excuses for him.   Stop diluting the significance of his attempt to steal the presidency by bringing in all sorts of other issues.   Directly focus on pushing him aside so that someone else secures the nomination.

In short, the GoP should work to ensure that Trump —who tried to steal the presidential election— never secures the one and only GoP presidential nomination slot for 2024.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.24  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.21    2 weeks ago
How many people do you actually think are defending those actions?

Do you have stats to offer?   If so, let's see them. 

Best I can tell, DeSantis is Trump's critical challenger.   The GoP should be working to ensure DeSantis is their leader and pushing Trump aside.    If DeSantis does not run, Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack.   While anything can happen and it is very likely that Trump's popularity will continue to wane, Trump is still a very strong contender.    

That should concern anyone who wants the GoP to have a chance to win the presidency in 2024.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.3.25  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.24    2 weeks ago
Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack.

And, in your opinion, whom does this pack consist of?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @3.3.25    2 weeks ago

Pundits have been offering the potential candidates for a while now.   Here is a source you might like: 

DeSantis is the most likely to take the reins.   Candidates like Pence have no prayer.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.3.27  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.26    2 weeks ago

Yes, but I was asking for your opinion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @3.3.27    2 weeks ago

My opinion is based on the names that have been offered.     I do not do original research on who might be a candidate.   I do not know who might have sent subtle signals of intent.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.3.29  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.28    2 weeks ago

I'm confused,  do you think "Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack." or do you think "DeSantis is the most likely to take the reins"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.30  author  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @3.3.29    2 weeks ago
TiG @3.3.24 ☞ Best I can tell, DeSantis is Trump's critical challenger.    ...   If DeSantis does not run, Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack.  

I see no reason for you to be confused.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.3.31  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.30    2 weeks ago

I see, so in your opinion DeSantis is the challenger? And if he doesn't run Trump is the de facto nominee? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.32  author  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @3.3.31    2 weeks ago

No, I have never stated that Trump is the de facto nominee.   I stated that he is head and shoulders above the rest.   That means he would be the clear front-runner with a large gap between him and second place.

The phrase 'de facto' is far too strong — especially at this early stage.    The phrase 'most likely' would be more accurate.   

DeSantis seems like the most likely challenger for Trump.

So now that I have repeatedly explained a very clear original statement, what is your opinion:   who is the most likely challenger for Trump and who is next line?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.20    2 weeks ago

By   John Ziegler Aug 25th, 2019, 11:49 am

Of all of the astonishingly bad media behavior during   Donald Trump’s   shockingly easy run to the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, the most inexplicable was the utter lack of legitimate vetting of him by the mainstream news media. There were numerous incidents which, if it was any other Republican campaign in history, the news media would have certainly used to destroy his candidacy, but instead they mostly just noted before quickly moving on to the next shiny object.

While there are far too many examples of this phenomenon, a few deserve special mention.

One of my personal favorites is   Trump blatantly lying   to the   Today   show about a tape of him embarrassingly pretending to be his own publicist “John Barron.” Not only did Trump clearly lie about this, but it was a story that could be easily understood, had overwhelming and entertaining proof, and could have driven a dagger right into the heart of his entire phony “alpha male/super rich guy” narrative (super rich guys obviously don’t have to pretend to be their own publicist).

Related to this was that Trump’s very shaky status as a legitimate billionaire was also never fully focused on by the news media, which I attribute mostly to the extremely dangerous tendency in the press (one Trump fully understands) to blindly believe anything that the New York media universally accepts as true. It was somehow not until well after his election as president   that we finally learned that Trump had lied to Forbes   in order to get that gross misperception of his fake wealth cemented as the essence of who he is (part of this was because the mainstream media, especially NBC, had already benefited from creating the myth of Trump as super-rich celebrity for their own benefit, making it more difficult for them to admit that was all just a convenient ruse).

Then there was the complete lack of curiosity, an example of extreme malpractice, that the news media had in what was clearly the   National Enquirer   tabloid working as a literal arm of the Trump campaign. Of course, we only learned after Trump was elected that the   National Enquirer   was engaged in a likely criminal conspiracy with Trump to cover up his dirty laundry, meaning, most importantly, that Trump somehow took the oath of office knowing that the tabloid, whose tactics are much like that of a terrorist organization, had enormous leverage over him.

Similarly, we now know, in what is maybe the most mind-blowing fact of the 2016 election that, even after winning the GOP nomination Trump was actively trying to make a deal with the Russian government to build a massive Trump Tower in Moscow. We also know that he lied about it numerous times (with his personal lawyer later committing perjury on the topic while testifying to Congress). While it would have taken some great journalism to find this out at the time, given Trump’s very strange penchant for praising   Vladimir Putin , and his long history of wanting to do business in Russia, for a vibrant fourth estate it would have hardly been impossible.

And yet, largely due to news media incompetence, the vast majority of Americans never knew any of these topics were even serious issues and, amazingly, still don’t to this day.

There are a lot of possible reasons for why the media failed so spectacularly here, with not wanting Trump out of the race for both economic and political agenda purposes near the top of the list. But a more innocent explanation deals with the treacherously tiny attention span of the modern media consumer and, consequently, also that of the outlets providing those customers the news.

In a sense, the mainstream news media was like a fisherman in a sea with such an embarrassment of angling options that no matter what Trump story they caught, they quickly threw it away, convinced that the   really   big one would be hooked at any moment. This clearly worked to Trump’s advantage in multiple ways.

One of them was that, because we now live in such a fragmented media environment that it’s not what is “reported,” but rather what gets “repeated” that carries the day, many stories the general public had no clue about where incorrectly deemed “old news” for the general election. But a much more significant factor was that the news media felt no urgency to change where the contest between Trump and   Hillary Clinton   appeared to be heading.

Based on all the polling, the mainstream media was going to get what was for them the best of all worlds. An entertaining and close-enough-to-create-drama general election that ends with the safer and more liberal alternative winning.

They could even pretend to be honest and fair arbiters by creating a false equivalence between Hillary’s email problems, a story they never let die, and everything else Trump was doing which should have made him utterly unqualified for the job. After all, everyone knew that there was no real danger of Trump actually winning.

Then, a month before the election, the big fish the media had been waiting for suddenly landed in the form of the now infamous “Access Hollywood Tape.” But much like Ernest Hemingway’s iconic character in   Old Man and the Sea , by the time they got the big whopper to shore, there was almost nothing left.

The media’s hysteria over the “pussy” tape was well-founded, but all-too-typically misguided. Being liberals who see everything through their lens of political correctness, they focused on the theoretical “sexual assault” aspect of the recording, rather on his out-of-touch “when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything” comments, which may have had more of an impact among his blue-collar voting base (maybe more importantly, it also pushed the emerging story of Russia’s influence on behalf of Trump totally out of the news cycle).

What the news media understandably thought was their knockout punch for Trump ended up barely leaving a mark. This was, in part, a consequence of many years of the news media squandering the public’s trust (especially among Republicans) and their loss of their monopoly over the political narrative.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.34  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.33    2 weeks ago

That isnt even the half of it. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.3.35  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.34    2 weeks ago

Trump isn't the cause of MAGA sentiment, he's the result of it...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.36  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.33    2 weeks ago

Most egregiously, the media did not subject Trump's record to the kind of scrutiny other major candidates should receive.

The very fact Trump had never held elective office or even formally run for one previously meant the political press did not have great muscle knowledge in how to approach him. But surely his business ventures, his entertainment career and his life in the gossip columns should have suggested something beyond a smirk.

Scores of lawsuits have been filed against Trump and his enterprises. His corporations have declared bankruptcy four times. His stated worth of $10 billion has been   credibly challenged   — for years. He has pressed the levers of power in city halls, state capitols and Washington, D.C., to gain financial advantage for   decades.   Surely these all deserve tough dissection.

Yet we knew far more, and far earlier, about more modest controversies involving the other candidates, such as   Bush's financial ties to the Common Core curriculum.   Or   Rubio's personal finances . Look at those dates: January and June 2015. These stories deserve coverage. But so did Trump's activities, even if they required a form of reporting unfamiliar to the political press corps.

You can rightly point to some strong exceptions: For example, the   Washington Post   on Trump University   last summer; Bloomberg in February   on his international holdings . But these can't be one-and-done stories. Readers and viewers are being swamped with information and content — and occasionally real journalism — and such useful reports often sweep past us.

As an institution, the news media (much like government itself) are held in very low regard; one can reasonably argue that reporters won't be trusted no matter how vigorously they dissect Trump's record and life.

But that fact shouldn't allow the profession to abdicate its actual mission.

The press had an obligation to surround its unfiltered and sometimes fond treatment of Trump as a celebrity and controversialist with tough-minded scrutiny. That turned out to be the exception rather than the rule.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.3.37  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.36    2 weeks ago
The press had an obligation to surround its unfiltered and sometimes fond treatment of Trump as a celebrity and controversialist with tough-minded scrutiny. That turned out to be the exception rather than the rule.

Why do you think that was? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.38  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.36    2 weeks ago

www.theatlantic.com   /ideas/archive/2020/09/media-mistakes/616222/

The Media Learned Nothing From 2016

James Fallows 22-28 minutes   9/15/2020


The press hasn’t broken its most destructive habits when it comes to covering Donald Trump.

original.jpg

....Also in pursuit of the ritual of balance, the networks offset coverage of Donald Trump’s ethical liabilities and character defects, which would have   proved disqualifying   in any other candidate for nearly any other job, with intense investigation of what they insisted were Hillary Clinton’s serious email problems. Six weeks before the election,   Gallup published a prophetic analysis   showing what Americans had heard about each candidate. For Trump, the words people most recognized from all the coverage were   speech ,   immigration , and   Mexico . For Clinton, one word dwarfed all others:   EMAIL . The next two on the list, much less recognized, were   lie   and   Foundation . (The Clinton Foundation, set up by Bill Clinton, was the object of sustained scrutiny for supposedly shady dealings that amount to an average fortnight’s revelations for the Trump empire.) One week before the election,   The   New York Times   devoted the entire top half of its front page to stories about FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of an investigation into the emails. “New Emails Jolt Clinton Campaign in Race’s Last Days” was the headline on the front page’s lead story. “With 11 Days to Go, Trump Says Revelation ‘Changes Everything,’” read another front-page   headline .

Just last week came a fresh reminder of the egregiousness of that coverage, often shorthanded as “But her emails!” On Wednesday, September 9, Bob Woodward’s tapes of Trump saying that when it came to the coronavirus, he “wanted to always play it down” came out, along with a whistleblower’s claim that the Department of Homeland Security was   falsifying intelligence   to downplay the risk of Russian election interference and violence from white supremacists. On the merits, either of those stories was far more important than Comey’s short-lived inquiry into what was always an overhyped scandal. But in this election season, each got a demure one-column headline on the   Times   front page .   The   Washington Post , by contrast, gave Woodward’s revelations banner treatment across its front page.

Who knows how the 2016 race might have turned out, and whether a man like Trump could have ended up in the position he did, if any of a hundred factors had gone a different way. But one important factor was the press’s reluctance to recognize what it was dealing with: a person nakedly using racial resentment as a tool; whose dishonesty and corruption dwarfed that of both Clintons combined, with most previous presidents’ thrown in as well ; and whose knowledge about the vast organization he was about to control was inferior to that of any Capitol Hill staffer and most immigrants who had passed the (highly demanding)  U.S. citizenship test .

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.39  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.23    2 weeks ago
If you agree that a Trump nomination would be bad for the GoP then the obvious course of action would be to work to see that someone else is nominated.

Which they are already doing.  

How does 'but look at all the unfair things they did to Trump during his presidency' (and equivalent) help to keep Trump from the nomination?   It does not;  it serves to support him.   Arguments that effectively paint Trump as a victim have been taking place for years and serve to shore up Trump support.

The point here, TiG, is that the ceaseless barrage of accusations becomes a meaningless cacophony.  They cannot cry wolf continually for 6 years and expect people to believe them, much less to still give a shit.

The GoP needs to get out of that mode and simply detach from Trump.

They appear to be much closer to letting go of Trump than Democrats do. 

Stop making excuses for him.

Who is making excuses for him? 

Stop diluting the significance of his attempt to steal the presidency by bringing in all sorts of other issues.

It really seems like "lack of any charges" is the most dilutive force there.  Surely if the Democrat in the WH and the Democrat led DOJ thought this was all that serious they'd have managed to produce something by now.

I'm fascinated by that, TBF.  How do you actually investigate that man for as many years as they have and not manage to find an actual crime?  It seems more difficult than running through while missing every raindrop.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.40  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.24    2 weeks ago
Do you have stats to offer?   If so, let's see them.

Since you're the one calling it a problem, I assumed you had them.

The GoP should be working to ensure DeSantis is their leader and pushing Trump aside.

Or.... maybe.... since it's a democracy and all.... they should let voters decide.  The voters might prefer Youngkin.  Or Abbott.  Or Noem.  Or Joe Manchin might switch parties.  No telling what might happen.

 If DeSantis does not run, Trump stands head and shoulders over the rest of the pack.

There is no "pack" yet.  It's too early for that.  Most of the potential candidates haven't been sworn in for the elections they just won.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.41  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.33    2 weeks ago
the most inexplicable was the utter lack of legitimate vetting of him by the mainstream news media.

Why would that be inexplicable?  When is the last time they vetted anything?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.42  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.39    2 weeks ago
Which they are already doing.  

Some are supporting candidates like DeSantis while defending Trump.   This article suggests that everyone cease running interference for Trump and focus on positive support for their future.   Make a full choice; break free.   Ensure Trump has no chance of securing the GoP nomination.

The point here, TiG, is that the ceaseless barrage of accusations becomes a meaningless cacophony. 

Of course, but that is not the point of this article — not in any way, nor does the article even hint that this barrage has not occurred.     The point of this article is that the GoP needs to stop running interference for Trump and especially on his most obvious, recent actions:  Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI documents.

This article argues that the GoP stop propping up Trump and instead rally support around a different candidate for PotUS.

They appear to be much closer to letting go of Trump than Democrats do. 

One can only hope so.   Trump's support is clearly waning since the midterms.   Hopefully that is a trend that will continue.   In which case, the problem will likely solve itself.   In the meantime, stop running interference for Trump.   Detach.   Focus on the future.

Who is making excuses for him? 

Jack, anytime someone makes comments like " the Jan 6th committee is a pure partisan circus " or " so where are the indictments? " they are providing cover for Trump.   They are implicitly persuading less aware voters to dismiss all the information presented by the committee.   When someone argues that Trump has not been found guilty (or even indicted) per the Big Lie campaign or the PRA TS/SCI documents they are encouraging susceptible people to view Trump as a victim.   " It's all a big conspiracy.   Trump really did not do anything nearly as bad as it looks ... "    

It is in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump cover.   Forget Trump and focus GoP political attention on candidates that the GoP wishes to promote.   Every defense of Trump simply add to keeping his candidacy relevant.   It is counter-productive;  it is damaging to the GoP and to the nation.

It really seems like "lack of any charges" is the most dilutive force there. 

See, here you go again.   What is the value of placing/increasing doubt in susceptible minds?   You know personally that Trump was wrong in his Big Lie campaign (for example) and caused harm to the USA.   You know that Trump, if elected to PotUS, would do harm to the GoP and to the nation.  You personally do not want Trump to be the nominee.   So why do you continue to feed the victim narratives and the conspiracy theories?   To what end? 

And, of course, the problem is not you or anyone on NT.   This is an irrelevant microcosm.   The problem is that this behavior is far too common in the GoP at large.

original

Instead of giving Trump cover, the GoP should rally support around other candidates and diminish Trump's relevance so that he hopefully drops out.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.43  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.40    2 weeks ago
Since you're the one calling it a problem, I assumed you had them.

There are other methods of identifying problems prior to having a mathematical model.

Or.... maybe.... since it's a democracy and all.... they should let voters decide.  The voters might prefer Youngkin.  Or Abbott.  Or Noem.  Or Joe Manchin might switch parties.  No telling what might happen.

DeSantis was an example because he is the most obvious leader.   Looks like you are just arguing irrelevant points for the sake of argument.

There is no "pack" yet.  It's too early for that.  

Yeah,  resorting to this level of nit-picking shows that you are just arguing to argue.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.3.44  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.4    2 weeks ago
the TS/SCI documents 

So when are we going to prosecute Clinton for doing that same thing. You all keep saying it was no big deal when she kept them on an unsecured server. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.3.45  arkpdx  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.40    2 weeks ago

Trump stands head and shoulders over any docrat I can think of especially the dolt we have now. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.46  author  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.44    2 weeks ago

This article is about the GoP nominating Trump.   It is about the GoP doing a disservice to itself.   Do you have a comment that is topical?

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.3.47  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.46    2 weeks ago

Truth hurts doesn't it,?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.48  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.47    2 weeks ago
"Truth hurts doesn't it?"

You wouldn't know.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.49  devangelical  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.47    2 weeks ago

be sure and let us know when any of your comments contain some...

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Silent
3.3.50  independent Liberal  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    2 weeks ago

What I want to know really is why are Democrats throwing such a tantrum over his existence as a candidate if most people realize he would lose in a general election?  I think they believe he will win, thus the Jan 6th committee and now a special counsel, all of which if history repeats will help him. The electorate hates government run investigations into candidates.

Let's just say the attempt to keep him off a ballot (even though we all know he can't win right?) succeeds. They run Desantis who is vastly more popular than anyone Democrats have in the bullpen. Sounds like a mistake in my opinion. The best course of action would be to abandon the hysterical fixation with Donald Trump and treat him like any other candidate. Remember our media has lower approval ratings than any of them and for good reason. 

What if Democrat's ran a normal candidate who could actually articulate a intelligent plan taking America forward. That would dispose of Donald.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.51  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.42    2 weeks ago
Some are supporting candidates like DeSantis while defending Trump.

Possibly.  Or possibly you're back to using the hive-mind definition of "defend Trump".  

Make a full choice; break free.   Ensure Trump has no chance of securing the GoP nomination.

What measurable outcome are you looking for?

nor does the article even hint that this barrage has not occurred.

The article is part of the barrage.

This article argues that the GoP stop propping up Trump and instead rally support around a different candidate for PotUS.

This is akin to arguing about a baseball team starting the wrong pitcher in a game that isn't scheduled until next May.

Jack, anytime someone makes comments like " the Jan 6th committee is a pure partisan circus " or " so where are the indictments? " they are providing cover for Trump.

So.... hive mind definitions it is.  

Understand that refusal to endorse one brand of bullshit does not constitute a defacto endorsement of another.

You yourself have admitted repeatedly that the committee was partisan and had zero power to actually do anything. 

"Where are the indictments" is a perfectly valid question that any impartial person should want to know.  We are a nation of laws.  If laws have been broken, we have a process for that.  No matter how despicable you may find a person, they are entitled to that process.

If you mistake defending the right of any American citizen to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as defense of Trump, you become a bigger problem than he ever was.

And this bullshit about "less aware voters" and "susceptible people"?  Go ahead and check "liberal condescension" off your hive requirements list.  

It is in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump cover.

It is in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump attention.  Which is why Democrats keep doing it.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.52  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.51    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.53  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.43    2 weeks ago
Looks like you are just arguing irrelevant points for the sake of argument.

I'll take that as your concession.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.54  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.51    2 weeks ago
What measurable outcome are you looking for?

Trump not achieving the plurality of votes to secure the GoP nomination.   As I noted in the body of my article.

The article is part of the barrage.

This article in its entirety:  

Trump has announced his candidacy.   He is yet again running for PotUS.   He seeks the GoP nomination.

Most people recognize that Trump will likely lose in a general election.    Thus if the GoP nominates Trump they will ipso facto place the D nominee in the oval office.

Hard to imagine that a GoP member would want that to occur.    Yet for some unknown reason, many GoP members take actions that make that a possibility;  they continue to excuse Trump's misdeeds and run interference for negative actions taken against Trump.

Trump can become the GoP nominee the same way he did it in 2016 — by achieving a plurality of the votes.   That is not a high bar, especially given Trump's extant base of supporters.

So here is the question, given the GoP nomination is within real reach of Trump and given that Trump will almost certainly lose in the general election and deliver the presidency to the D nominee, why do so many GoP members continue to make excuses for Trump's disqualifying qualities and behavior?

Keep defending Trump and he will secure the plurality and become the GoP nominee.   
He will then lose the general election and you will have accomplished what you fear most — putting a D back in the oval office.

Show me where this article made any accusation except to mention in the abstract "Trump's misdeeds" and his "disqualifying qualities and behavior".   I am quite willing to accuse Trump of specific wrongdoing, but this article is not about accusing Trump; rather it is about the counterproductive behavior of the GoP.

This is akin to arguing about a baseball team starting the wrong pitcher in a game that isn't scheduled until next May.

Trump has announced his candidacy.   Your objection to speaking about the negative affects on the GoP of having Trump succeed are ridiculous.   This is the perfect time (given we cannot change the past) for the GoP to distance themselves from Trump and allow him to become irrelevant.

You yourself have admitted repeatedly that the committee was partisan and had zero power to actually do anything. 

What does the committee have to do with this article?   I just offered examples of excuses.   And I have not admitted anything.   I stated upfront when this was news that the committee was biased and that it can only advise and report.    Stating the obvious upfront is not an 'admission'.

"Where are the indictments" 

This question is typically done to suggest that Trump has done no wrong because there have been no indictments (yet).   

If you mistake defending the right of any American citizen to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as defense of Trump

I always speak of Trump's wrongdoing, not his guilt.  But inevitably GoP partisans ignore this and go back to guilt.   Trump is not (yet) guilty of any wrongdoings because none have been adjudicated.    Wrongdoings is what I speak of, not guilt.

And this bullshit about "less aware voters" and "susceptible people"?  

Is our unfortunate reality; don't be naïve.

It is in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump attention.  

Yes it is.   And it is also in the best interest of the GoP (and the nation) for people to stop giving Trump cover.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.55  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.53    2 weeks ago

This is what you resort to?   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.56  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.55    2 weeks ago
This is what you resort to?   

No... it's what you resort to.   You only make accusations like that when you can't rebut a point intelligently.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.57  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.56    2 weeks ago

Oh cut the shit Jack.   You make a totally petty complaint that the 'pack' has not yet been decided because only Trump has declared.

That is both petty and irrelevant.   The 'pack' can be discussed today as the likely candidates that pundits have listed; we have a list of potential candidates right now.   They are not the official candidates but they certainly can (and are) discussed.   

You have resorted to nit-picking individual words and, in this case, demanding that I cannot refer to the potential candidates discussed by the media as 'the pack'.

You are being ridiculous.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.58  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.54    2 weeks ago
Trump not achieving the plurality of votes to secure the GoP nomination.

Riiiiiiight... you are accusing people of failing to do something... and the evidence you will accept that they are actually doing this thing will not possibly be available for 20 months.  

Show me where this article made any accusation

You accuse people of "making excuses" and then "defending Trump".   In the comments, you have then clarified your definitions of those phrases align with very liberal or left-wing points of view.

Trump has announced his candidacy.

And??  It seems completely lost on you that nobody else has announced, so there really isn't anyone else to support yet.  It also seems completely lost on you that announcing a presidential candidacy right now is wildly inappropriate....which is why Trump is the only one doing it.

Ronald Reagan announced his first presidential candidacy in November 1975, 12 months before the election.  Bill Clinton announced in October 1991...13 months.   Even Barack Obama waited until February of 2007.  

Just because Trump has shown up 6 months early does not mean the game has started yet.  

This is the perfect time (given we cannot change the past) for the GoP to distance themselves from Trump and allow him to become irrelevant.

It is not the perfect time.  It is not even the appropriate time.  It is far, far too early.  Actively opposing Trump right now only plays into his hands.  

This question is typically done to suggest that Trump has done no wrong because there have been no indictments (yet). 

That doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid question.  Many people, including you, regularly accuse Trump of one form of illegal activity or another.  Yet after years of investigations, the man hasn't even been charged with an actual crime.  He was even impeached the first time on charges that weren't actually crimes.  

The silence on criminal charges is absolutely deafening to anybody trying to remain remotely objective.  On the surface, it would seem like investigating Trump and not finding crimes would be like investigating Lilliput and not finding short people.  Yet that's what we see.   

I always speak of Trump's wrongdoing, not his guilt. 

You've used the word "steal" at least a dozen times in this seed alone.  

If he broke a law, then let's charge him.  If he didn't, stop whining.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.59  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.58    2 weeks ago
Riiiiiiight... you are accusing people of failing to do something... and the evidence you will accept that they are actually doing this thing will not possibly be available for 20 months.  

I am stating that many GoP members are making excuses for Trump.  You would have to be blind to not see that this is taking place.   

You accuse people of "making excuses" and then "defending Trump". 

Yes.   It is ridiculous for you to pretend you do not understand the meaning of those phrases.

And??  It seems completely lost on you that nobody else has announced, so there really isn't anyone else to support yet. 

I have stated that only Trump has announced.   More petty nonsense from you.   The point of Trump announcing is that we now know he is running.   That means we now know that he has a chance of being nominated.   That is significant.   Get it?

It also seems completely lost on you that announcing a presidential candidacy right now is wildly inappropriate....which is why Trump is the only one doing it.

He announced therefore we know he is a candidate who could be nominated. 

It is not the perfect time.  It is not even the appropriate time.  It is far, far too early.  

It is indeed the perfect time.   If you do not want Trump to be the nominee, the moment he announced his candidacy is the perfect time to work to ensure he is not the nominee.   It is perfect, as I noted, because we cannot go back in time and detach from Trump in 2021.   The present is the best we can do.   Starting right now, the GoP should be distancing itself from Trump and working to ensure he is irrelevant.

Many people, including you, regularly accuse Trump of one form of illegal activity or another. 

Bullshit.   I accuse Trump of wrongdoing.  I am very careful and very clear.   You are just making shit up.

You've used the word "steal" at least a dozen times in this seed alone.  

Yeah, Jack, Trump tried to steal the election.    Do you deny that?   Might as well, your comments have moved into utter absurdity now.

He has not been found  legally guilty of trying to steal but he certainly tried to do so.

Or are you going to tell me that Trump did not try to steal the election ... he just tried to win it dishonestly ?   1280

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
3.3.60  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.57    2 weeks ago
Oh cut the shit Jack.   You make a totally petty complaint that the 'pack' has not yet been decided because only Trump has declared.

Riiiiight. So factual statements are now 'petty complaints' if they interrupt your bullshit.  

That is both petty and irrelevant.   The 'pack' can be discussed today as the likely candidates that pundits have listed; we have a list of potential candidates right now.

In November 2006 nobody had ever heard of Barack Obama.   You have no clue who is even going to run, how much money they're going to raise or how well they're going to catch on.  There is no pack yet.  FFS, for all you know Mark Cuban will run.

This entire article is simply an exercise about you having a burr up your ass because you're irritated Republicans are not doing shit they can't actually do yet to stop a threat you are determined to overestimate dramatically.  It's like you moved in with JohnRussel and now you're both drinking the same KoolAid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.61  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.60    2 weeks ago
Riiiiight. So factual statements are now 'petty complaints' if they interrupt your bullshit.  

I referred to the list of candidates proposed for the GoP as the pack.   Your objection to my referring to the current list of potential candidates as 'the pack' is petty bullshit.

You have no clue who is even going to run, how much money they're going to raise or how well they're going to catch on.  There is no pack yet.  FFS, for all you know Mark Cuban will run.

You keep insisting that 'the pack' must be defined as those who have formally announced.   The pack, today, is the list of potential candidates that the media talks about.   Petty, nit-picking bullshit.   

This entire article is simply an exercise about you having a burr up your ass because you're irritated Republicans are not doing shit they can't actually do yet to stop a threat you are determined to overestimate dramatically.  It's like you moved in with JohnRussel and now you're both drinking the same KoolAid.

Then leave the article.   It is best for you to do that rather than continue engage in obnoxious petty nonsense and making this personal.   You are not making an intelligent argument, you are attacking with pathetic, petty nonsense.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
3.3.62  Gazoo  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.60    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.63  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @3.3.62    2 weeks ago

Make a thoughtful comment or leave.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.64  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.63    2 weeks ago

that may be a bridge too far...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.65  Trout Giggles  replied to  independent Liberal @3.3.50    2 weeks ago
What if Democrat's ran a normal candidate who could actually articulate a intelligent plan taking America forward. That would dispose of Donald.

That's a great idea...but where do we find one?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.66  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.65    2 weeks ago

How about this?

The GoP does its job and nominates an individual who is at least a halfway decent human being who can be trusted with the power of the presidency.   And they thus ensure Trump never has a chance at the nomination.

The D party then does likewise.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.67  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.66    2 weeks ago

Oh, absolutely!!!

but I think we're both dreaming. Wake me when you wake up...lol

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.68  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.66    2 weeks ago

Or...   you could switch  your party preference to Republican in order to vote in the Republican primary to help nominate someone you feel would be a better candidate...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.69  author  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.68    2 weeks ago

By 'you' are you talking about me personally or about people in general?

Many states offer open primaries which means nobody has to change (or pick) a party affiliation to vote in the primary.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.70  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.69    2 weeks ago

Yep, I mean you.  If you want a better candidate to win the Republican nomination then switch to that party to vote in the primary and help your preferred candidate.  Just telling other people to nominate a better person never works out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.71  author  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.70    2 weeks ago

You then presume I am a D.    You should never presume.    In fact, I have made it quite clear that I have no party affiliation.   So why engage in this nonsense?

 Just telling other people to nominate a better person never works out.

Is that all you got out of this article?   This article makes the point that the GoP is shooting itself in the foot if they allow Trump to secure the nomination.

Do you want Trump to secure the nomination?    If not, then why would you object to a logical argument that it is best for the GoP, now that Trump has announced, to NOT prop Trump up but rather prop up someone they want to nominate?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.72  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.71    2 weeks ago
You then presume I am a D.    You should never presume. 

Didn't presume anything, you should read better.  Nowhere did I say to switch FROM a party to the Republican party, all I said was to switch to the Republican party so you can vote in the Republican primary.

This article makes the point that the GoP is shooting itself in the foot if they allow Trump to secure the nomination.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.  IMO it's too early to guess at who's gonna win the Republican nomination.  A lot of things can happen in the next 18 months.

Do you want Trump to secure the nomination?    If not, then why would you object to a logical argument that it is best for the GoP, now that Trump has announced, to NOT prop Trump up but rather prop up someone they want to nominate?

No, definitely do not want Trump to win the nomination.  I've said that before, even in a reply to you I believe on another thread.  All I can do is point out that it's still very early in the process, we do not know who else will throw their hats in ring yet and we have absolutely no knowledge on what backroom negotiations are occurring.  

In fact, I have made it quite clear that I have no party affiliation.   So why engage in this nonsense?

But you are much more vocal about the Republicans having a better candidate than Trump than you are about potential candidates for the Democrats.  So it just seems to me that if the Republican nominee is such an issue for you then you should just change your party affiliation so that you can help choose the next Republican candidate.  Otherwise it's all just hot air.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.73  author  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.72    2 weeks ago
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. 

How inciteful.

IMO it's too early to guess at who's gonna win the Republican nomination.  A lot of things can happen in the next 18 months.

This is not about picking who will be the R nominee but rather ensuring that Trump is not that person.   The way to do that is to STOP propping him up.   Quit defending / excusing / supporting Trump.    When people do that they make it that much easier for Trump supporters to remain as such.

But you are much more vocal about the Republicans having a better candidate than Trump than you are about potential candidates for the Democrats.  

Because Trump is so excessively bad.    If Trump were a D I would be saying the exact same thing about him and then the exact same thing about the Ds if they were operating as the Rs are today.

Do you truly not see that Trump is, in all of US history, the only PotUS who tried to steal a US election?   Nobody has done anything even remotely close to what he did in his Big Lie campaign.   Do I need to list the bullet points again?   


[ As an aside, cut the personal crap.   This article is not about me. ]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.74  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.72    2 weeks ago

No, TiG is just as opinionated about Dems.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.75  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.72    2 weeks ago
you could switch  your party preference to Republican

Are those your words? What makes you think he wasn't a registered republican?

I know he is neither a D or R but I engage with him more often than you do.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.76  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.72    2 weeks ago
But you are much more vocal about the Republicans having a better candidate than Trump than you are about potential candidates for the Democrats.

I guess you missed this comment from TiG:

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.77  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.73    2 weeks ago

You want to help insure that Trump is not the R nominee then it's simple.  As I stated, switch to the Republican party so you can vote in the primary. Saying Trump is bad and should not be the candidate (which I happen to agree with as I've stated in the past) is just hot air unless you also can actively work to insure he does not win the nomination.  It's very easy to sit and tell other people what they need to do but unless you're actually in the trenches and voting for a better candidate then you are doing nothing that any other political pundit can do which in reality is nothing but feed a base.  

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
3.3.78  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.63    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.79  author  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.77    2 weeks ago
You want to help i[e]nsure that Trump is not the R nominee then it's simple.  

Remember that I informed you that many of the states have open primaries.   So nobody in these states has to switch parties.   And switching parties means going from one party to another.

Saying Trump is bad and should not be the candidate (which I happen to agree with as I've stated in the past) is just hot air unless you also can actively work to insure he does not win the nomination.

Gee thanks for again stating the obvious that words must ultimately translate into deeds.

Note that you just implied that everything that we discuss on social forums like this is just hot air.   Every article and every comment is just hot air.   So it is pointless for people to discuss things, opine, debate, etc. because unless it is followed up by action ... it is all hot air.     You should now go to each article on the site and offer this insight.

So why are you opining in a forum?   Why bother if it is all merely hot air?

Ironically, this article is making the recommendation that you just made:  to take action (now, not wait for the primary) in response to Trump announcing his candidacy.   Do you see that?

It's very easy to sit and tell other people what they need to do but unless you're actually in the trenches and voting for a better candidate then you are doing nothing that any other political pundit can do which in reality is nothing but feed a base.  

Yes, so do you now understand the point of the article?    It is that the GoP members need to act to ensure Trump is not the nominee.   Defending Trump is acting in direct counter to that; it is the GoP shooting its own foot.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
3.3.80  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.63    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
3.4  Sunshine  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago
"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!!"

Biden repeated his MAGA diatribe through the mid-terms before Trump announced his bid for President.

Impeachments, Mueller, Jan 6th hearings and now another Special Prosecutor.  Democrats definitely want Trump in the spotlight daily.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sunshine @3.4    2 weeks ago
Democrats definitely want Trump in the spotlight daily.

Of course.  It distracts the simple minded from the damage Democrats have done to this country.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.4    2 weeks ago

Of course the Ds want Trump front and center.   If the GoP nominates Trump, it almost assures a D win for the presidency.

Kinda the point of this article.   WTF is the GoP thinking by continuing to defend / excuse Trump?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
3.4.3  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.2    2 weeks ago
Kinda the point of this article.   WTF is the GoP thinking by continuing to defend / excuse Trump?

What GOP people are you speaking about specifically?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.4.3    2 weeks ago

Those who support Trump and those who defend / excuse him.    I have stated that several times already.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago
Democrats have weaponized the IRS, FBI, and DOJ against their opponents.

Your comment is not just idiotic it's also

BULLFUCKINGSHIT!!!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.5.1  Gsquared  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.5    2 weeks ago

Exactly.  The reactionary propagandists who spew that kind of idiotic bullshit know it's fraudulent.  They just don't have anything worthwhile to say.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.5.2  arkpdx  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.5    2 weeks ago

So do cows and horses. Big deal. 

Oh and Ronin2,'s cement is 100% correct. Garlands announcement of a special council right after Trump announced his candidacy is proof enough of that 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
3.5.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  arkpdx @3.5.2    2 weeks ago
Garlands announcement of a special council right after Trump announced his candidacy is proof enough of that 

Thanx for posting another idiotic comment.

Since the DOJ is part of the administration, Garland severed the DOJ from the investigation from an announced presidential candidate.  The use of an outside special prosecutor was the right thing to do. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.5.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  arkpdx @3.5.2    2 weeks ago
Garlands announcement of a special council right after Trump announced his candidacy is proof enough of that 

256

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.5.5  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.5.3    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
3.5.6  arkpdx  replied to  devangelical @3.5.5    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Ronin2 @3    2 weeks ago

Lol yes, because Trump does not not keep inserting himself into the conversation, at every fucking turn. 

Just admit that you have mentally enslaved yourself to a child molesting (we all know he molested Ivanka at least once) lose and we can at least talk on an honest level. 

And honestly, this is the GOP plan for Hillary. So quit your pathetic bitching. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
Inflation; high gas prices; rampant crime; a wide open border with record numbers of illegal immigrants, drugs, and gang members coming across it; and a looming recession.

If we listen to these conservatives, one might get the idea that prior to the election of Joe Biden there was no such thing as inflation, crime, high gas prices, immigration, drugs and gangs. In truth every one of those issues has a historical precedent. 

But even if Biden were wholly responsible for what is going on, it is not an excuse, at all, for defending Donald Trump. 

I dont know if I will have to say it a million times or not, but Trumpism is all about white grievance at the loss of 'their' country to multiculturalism and many of them are loathe to let that grievance go. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
If we listen to these conservatives, one might get the idea that prior to the election of Joe Biden there was no such thing as inflation, crime, high gas prices, immigration, drugs and gangs. In truth every one of those issues has a historical precedent. 

Conversely, if we listen to liberals, all those things are better under Biden no matter what the facts actually are.  In truth, at least some of Biden's policies can be directly linked to increases in inflation, crime, high gas prices, immigration, drugs and gangs.

I dont know if I will have to say it a million times or not, but Trumpism is all about white grievance at the loss of 'their' country to multiculturalism and many of them are loathe to let that grievance go. 

You can choose to say it a million times if that makes you feel better.

That comment is so ignorant it doesn't deserve a response.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 weeks ago

You are not supposed to be able to post to me, but maybe that restriction expired or something. 

Dont make me get started on your troll ass. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
You are not supposed to be able to post to me, but maybe that restriction expired or something. 

Report it then instead of whining.

Dont make me get started on your troll ass.

I am sure this will come as quite a shock, but not everyone who disagrees with you is trolling you.

Stick to what I wrote.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
4.2  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 weeks ago
Trumpism is all about white grievance at the loss of 'their' country to multiculturalism 

To quote al Jizerror;

BULLFUCKING SHIT !!!

 
 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Why is this so difficult to understand?  Defending Trump means that Republicans like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, or Ted Cruz haven't got a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  Defending Trump is a bulwark against backsliding by Republican deadwood.

Reagan ain't coming back.  Gingrich ain't coming back.  The TEA Party ain't coming back.  Defending Trump prevents that.  The Republican base has turned its back on what Democrats want the Republican Party to be.  Democrats want to stop the Republican Party from changing but defending Trump means the Republican Party is going to change, Democrats be damned.

Defense of Trump is an internecine fight within the Republican Party.  Defending Trump doesn't have anything to do with Democrats.  Yet.  The 2024 election may resolve the fight within the Republican Party.  If it does then God have mercy on Democrats because Republicans are going to demand a mountain of political payback.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5    2 weeks ago

Do you think it is wise for GoP members to defend Trump and, in so doing, enable him to secure the GoP nomination?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 weeks ago
Do you think it is wise for GoP members to defend Trump and, in so doing, enable him to secure the GoP nomination?

You really believe there aren't any Republican contenders that can challenge Trump as MAGA candidates?  Republican challengers are going to bide their time; it's still early.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
You really believe there aren't any Republican contenders that can challenge Trump as MAGA candidates? 

Where did you get that??   I am saying, clearly, that if the GoP continues to excuse / defend Trump, they are making it possible for him to win the nomination by plurality.

This is a very brief article ... how could you miss this?:

Trump can become the GoP nominee the same way he did it in 2016 — by achieving a plurality of the votes.   That is not a high bar, especially given Trump's extant base of supporters.

'Can' does not mean 'will'.   'Can' means 'it is possible'; I would say it is quite possible.   Trump can also fail to become the GoP nominee if the GoP stops defending him and making excuses for him.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
Where did you get that??   I am saying, clearly, that if the GoP continues to excuse / defend Trump, they are making it possible for him to win the nomination by plurality. This is a very brief article ... how could you miss this?:

And I have explained that defending Trump prevents Republican backsliding.  Apparently you missed that.

Can' does not mean 'will'.   'Can' means 'it is possible'; I would say it is quite possible.   Trump can also fail to become the GoP nominee if the GoP stops defending him and making excuses for him.

Don't confuse possibility with probability.  A lot of strange and bizarre things are possible.  It's possible Biden and Harris would be removed before January and Pelosi becomes President.  It's possible the United States could become a Communist republic allied with Russia before the next election.  But those possibilities are highly improbable.

Possibilities, alone, are only used to stir the cesspool and raise a stink.  An argument based on possibilities, alone, isn't grounded in reality.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.3    2 weeks ago
And I have explained that defending Trump prevents Republican backsliding.  Apparently you missed that.

Defending Trump just keeps Trump relevant.   How can you not see that?

Don't confuse possibility with probability. 

You are the one who is confused.   'Can' means 'possible', not 'probable'.   The word 'likely' connotes probable.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    2 weeks ago
Defending Trump just keeps Trump relevant.   How can you not see that?

Defending Trump keeps MAGA relevant.  That's the point everyone wants to avoid seeing.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

Are you actually suggesting that defending Trump does NOT keep him relevant and thus enabled to secure the nomination??

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

The other day a bunch of potential GOP presidential candidates gave speeches before a conservative group in Las Vegas. I think there 9 or 10 of them, including Trump and DeSantis. 

Some of these prospective candidates were asked if they thought too many candidates would give the nomination to Trump.  Their basic standard answer ? "the field is wide open". 

Each of the 7 or 8 who are not Trump or DeSantis believes they are the one who can bring Trump and DeSantis down. 

This is a course for disaster for the country and of course the Republican party. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    2 weeks ago

Because the nomination is based on plurality, the more GoP candidates the more likely Trump is to be nominated.

This is a course for disaster for the country and of course the Republican party. 

It seems that many in the GoP cannot see the harm to the GoP that Trump brings.   How can anyone not see that if Trump gets the GoP nomination the D party is almost certain to win the presidency?

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
5.1.9  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.8    2 weeks ago
It seems that many in the GoP cannot see the harm to the GoP that Trump brings.

That's irrelevant, because of this:

         How can anyone not see that if Trump gets the GoP nomination the D party is almost certain to win the presidency?

I'm sure that the democrats in open primary states see that also and usually the democrat party tends to get a front runner as early in the process as possible, it will make it possible for democrats in later primaries to vote the republican side without the need to protect, through their voting, their preferred democrat candidate.

If you can assure me that the democrats won't take over the republican primaries and vote for Trump, as what happens here in Michigan over and over again.  I for one will not vote for Trump in the primaries, but if the democrats screw the republicans again (let's face it there will be republicans who will vote for him) and Trump gets the nomination, then I will have no other choice but to help him win against the democrat policies with my vote.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @5.1.9    2 weeks ago

Okay, so if the Ds so take over the R primary as to force Trump in as the GoP nominee, you will vote for Trump in an attempt to keep the Ds from winning the presidency.

If the GoP members do NOT vote for Trump, the crossover Ds are not likely to produce enough votes for Trump to prevail.    That is, Trump would need substantial GoP votes for the D crossovers to make a difference.

Thus, it is in the best interest of the GoP to stop defending / excusing / supporting Trump so that the straggler GoP members move to someone else.


Now, you say this is irrelevant but clearly it is not:  do you hold that a Trump nomination will hurt or help the GoP?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.6    2 weeks ago
Are you actually suggesting that defending Trump does NOT keep him relevant and thus enabled to secure the nomination??

That's a rather obtuse negative observation.  We're talking about Republican primaries.  Keeping MAGA relevant through Trump is a threat to other Republican candidates.  Republican candidates trying to challenge Trump need to become MAGA candidates, too.  Or they'll fail.

Until the primaries are over and Republicans have nominated a candidate this is a Republicans-only show.  It's an internal fight for control over the policy agenda of the Republican Party.  What's happening isn't about Democrats.  Yet.

If Democrats are going to meddle in the internal affairs of the Republican Party then turnabout is fair play.  At the least, Trump will be especially useful for meddling in Democrats' primaries.  It's rather obvious Democrats fear Trump so defending Trump is a backhanded way of attacking Democrats.  Democrats are terrified by the possibility that Trump can win the next election.  And Democrats are so easily misled because they do not understand the difference between possibility and probability.

Remember that Democrats had convinced themselves that Clinton could easily beat Trump.  Democrats are worried they may be terribly wrong again.  

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
5.1.12  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.10    2 weeks ago
Okay, so if the Ds so take over the R primary as to force Trump in as the GoP nominee, you will vote for Trump in an attempt to keep the Ds from winning the presidency.

Yes, that would be correct.

If the GoP members do NOT vote for Trump, the crossover Ds are not likely to produce enough votes for Trump to prevail.    That is, Trump would need substantial GoP votes for the D crossovers to make a difference.

As I noted, there will be R's that will vote for him, there will be no complete "NOT vote", and I believe you underestimate the amount of D's that crossover especially when there is no competition of the D side of the primary.  I personally know many who will vote for Trump no matter what, but with a few, DeSantis is a viable option.

Of course he will hurt, but that is irrelevant, because the D's will try their level best to saddle the R's with him anyways.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.11    2 weeks ago

Nothing in your comment addressed mine so why even reply? 

Of course the primary is about Republicans.   How can you possibly get that I think otherwise given what I wrote?   This article is about the GoP, Nerm.    It is not about the Ds.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.13    2 weeks ago
Nothing in your comment addressed mine so why even reply?  Of course the primary is about Republicans.   How can you possibly get that I think otherwise given what I wrote?   This article is about the GoP, Nerm.    It is not about the Ds.

Everything in my comment addressed yours.  And, yes, the context is politics within the Republican Party.  Defending Trump has significance within the Republican Party.  Democrats' hair-on-fire fearmongering only serves to meddle in the politics within the Republican Party.

Trump is relevant in the Republican Party as the standard bearer of MAGA.  Trump is not a Reagan Republican.  Trump is not a Gingrich Republican.  Trump is not a TEA Party Republican.  Trump challenges the Republican Party legacy of supply-side neoliberal globalization that has been painted with libertarian lipstick.  MAGA is not an iteration of Reaganomics; MAGA threatens to completely displace Reaganomics.

Trying to impose the Democrats' rhetoric onto the internal politics of the Republican Party as a measure of 'good' or 'bad' only makes Democrats part of the process.  Democrats want to snipe from the sidelines and claim they're not in the game.  It's no secret that Democrats rely heavily on the politics of stoking divisions and starting dog fights.  Democrats want to take advantage of the fight within the Republican Party but are alarmed that, this time, the dogs they're urging to fight may bite Democrats instead of biting each other.

If Democrats believe Trump makes it harder for Republicans to win elections then Democrats will obviously want more of Trump.  Democrats will try to use Trump to divide the Republican Party.  The danger for Democrats is that the dog fight Democrats want can turn into a blood feud.  If MAGA becomes dominant within the Republican Party then Democrats' version of supply-side neoliberal globalization painted with socialist lipstick will be on the chopping block.  In that event, Democrats will have to become MAGA, too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.14    2 weeks ago

Do you want Trump to secure the nomination for the GoP?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.15    2 weeks ago
Do you want Trump to secure the nomination for the GoP?

If that is what is necessary to rid the Republican Party of supply-side neoliberal globalization painted with phony libertarian lipstick, then so be it.

A candidate capable of turning MAGA into a policy agenda that displaces Reaganomics would be preferable.  And there are Republicans capable of accomplishing that, if they choose. 

If the only choices are between Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Donald Trump, then Donald Trump should be the nominee.  Nominating a clown would be better for the party (and the country) than nominating a devil. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.17  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.16    2 weeks ago
If that is what is necessary to rid the Republican Party of supply-side neoliberal globalization painted with phony libertarian lipstick, then so be it.

It is a simple question, Nerm.   If you think Trump is good for the GoP you would want him as the nominee, if not, you would not want him.

I take your answer as a net: "I do not want Trump to be the nominee"

Then does it not make sense, given Trump has announced, for the GoP to NOT keep defending him and instead focus on finding and supporting others?

The Ds obviously would want Trump to be the nominee.   Why is it that so many GoP members are so willing to play into their hands by keeping Trump relevant?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.17    2 weeks ago
It is a simple question, Nerm.   If you think Trump is good for the GoP you would want him as the nominee, if not, you would not want him.

And I've provided a simple answer.  As I pointed out, a candidate that can turn MAGA into a policy agenda would be preferable.  The MAGA base wants a MAGA candidate.  If Trump is the only MAGA candidate then Trump would be acceptable if not desirable.

Then does it not make sense, given Trump has announced, for the GoP to NOT keep defending him and instead focus on finding and supporting others?

Why do you think there won't be an attempt to find a MAGA challenger to Trump?  Democrats are all about Trump.  The press is all about Trump.  Democrats and the press are only giving Trump any air.  So, its necessary to continue defending Trump until the primaries get under way.

At this point, the only way to keep MAGA relevant is to keep Trump relevant.  That's the only thing Democrats and the press are allowing.  If Republicans turn their backs on Trump now (before the primaries) then that's to the advantage of the neoliberal deadwood (otherwise known as the Republican establishment).  At this point in time, making Trump irrelevant allows the Republican Party to backslide.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.1.19  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.18    2 weeks ago

“The MAGA base wants a MAGA candidate.”

Too bad George Wallace is gone…though his spirit lives on. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Nerm_L  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.19    2 weeks ago
Too bad George Wallace is gone…though his spirit lives on. 

George Wallace was a Democrat.  Too bad Democrats don't know the history of their own politics.  Maybe that's why Democrats keep repeating the mistakes of their own past.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.21  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.18    2 weeks ago
Why do you think there won't be an attempt to find a MAGA challenger to Trump?

Where have I suggested that?

At this point, the only way to keep MAGA relevant is to keep Trump relevant.

That is stupid.   MAGA is core GoP policy.   Plenty of GoP candidates can take the MAGA banner (even by a different name) and run with it.  

At this point in time, making Trump irrelevant allows the Republican Party to backslide.

Unbelievable.   You think Trump is positive for the GoP?   You think it better to support Trump right now rather than focus on the future with almost certainly better leaders?   Amazing.   With that kind of 'thinking' it is no wonder the GoP is so screwed up.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
5.1.22  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.20    2 weeks ago

“Too bad Democrats don't know the history of their own politics.”

And those that don’t learn from the historical shortcomings are doomed to repeat it.

Progression vs. regression… and just which party longs for the past?

So tired of the lamest of lame excuses in which to hang one’s maga hat. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.20    2 weeks ago
George Wallace was a Democrat. 

Yes one of those staunchly racist conservatives back when both parties had their equal share of libs and cons.

Too bad Democrats don't know the history of their own politics.

Too bad you confuse ideologies with party names.

  Maybe that's why Democrats keep repeating the mistakes of their own past.

Maybe that's why certain pundits make Josef Goebels proud. Simplify the lie and repeat it over and over.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Split Personality @5.1.23    2 weeks ago
Yes, one of those staunchly racist conservatives back when both parties had their equal share of libs and cons.

That is the reality that Republicans today seem desperate to obfuscate. Just under a century ago both parties had their share of liberals and conservatives. The Northern Democrats tended to be liberal while the Southern Democrats were almost all conservatives. The same goes for Republicans, the region they came from almost always determined whether they were liberal or conservative, as shown by the 1964 civil rights act vote by region.

By party and region:

The House of Representatives:

  • Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
  • Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)
The Senate:
  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Of course, even though political party power by region has changed dramatically since the civil rights act was passed, the region they live in is still a major factor as to whether they are liberal or conservative. So, if you color coded America by just "liberal" and "conservative", let's say red for conservative and blue for liberal, not much has changed in the last century, the Southern States are still red and have the pretty much the same white conservative confederate flag wavers and their descendants they passed their beliefs and prejudices onto inhabiting the same cities, States, homes and positions of political power.

The only difference today is that the conservatives that were in the Democratic party migrated to the Republican party after the 1964 civil votes act was passed by a majority of Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic President. And the liberals in the Republican party ended up migrating to the Democratic party as the Republican party began to demand conservative conformity. So, what were once purple parties (a mix of liberals and conservatives on each side) governing these blue and red regions, we now have torched earth political parties that reject any "mixing" of political colors, it must be red vs blue, there shall be no mingling of the political races as it were. Being a 'liberal' Republican is now verboten.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.24    2 weeks ago
the region they came from almost always determined whether they were liberal or conservative, as shown by the 1964 civil rights act vote by region

Yeah, it was all those  big government  southern  conservatives who supported their fellow southerner's big society. This should be obvious, and it is to anyone who knows the first thing about history,  but racists were both conservative and liberal.  The idea that only conservatives were  racist is one of the left wing creation myths that became popular the last few decades, as democrats became less informed and more emotionally invested in their party.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.21    2 weeks ago
That is stupid.   MAGA is core GoP policy.   Plenty of GoP candidates can take the MAGA banner (even by a different name) and run with it.

MAGA is not yet core Republican policy.  I agree that there are Republicans that incorporate MAGA ideas into a Republican Party policy agenda.  But those Republicans need to choose to run; they can't accomplish anything from the sidelines.  No one should blame those Republicans for wanting to avoid the shitshow Democrats and the press have created.

Unbelievable.   You think Trump is positive for the GoP?   You think it better to support Trump right now rather than focus on the future with almost certainly better leaders?   Amazing.   With that kind of 'thinking' it is no wonder the GoP is so screwed up.

I believe MAGA is positive for the Republican Party.  Even Democrats recognize that.  Democrats have been moving to include America First into their politics and policies.  America First has been deeply embedded into Democrats climate change agenda.

If Trump is the only one willing to make MAGA ideas core to the Republican Party policy agenda then Trump is not only positive for the party, Trump is necessary.  Better to have a MAGA candidate that can't win an election to a Republican returning the party to the failed status quo.  Even the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, without any doubt, that the military cannot fight without factories.  Hollowing out the industrial base of the United States to promote financial flimflam has been a huge mistake. 

No one trusts Democrats to manage the economy.  Democrats' policies won't work without the rich becoming richer.  So, it falls upon Republican shoulders to make America First.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.27  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.26    2 weeks ago
MAGA is not yet core Republican policy. 

It is GoP red meat.   Trump simply packaged up what his supporters wanted to hear.

I believe MAGA is positive for the Republican Party. 

Not the question I asked.

Better to have a MAGA candidate that can't win an election to a Republican returning the party to the failed  status quo .  

Better to have Trump who will lose than to have another GoP candidate who is not exclusive to MAGA???     jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Madness.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.1.28  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.27    2 weeks ago

So tell me, why are you so against making America great. Do you want to live in a shitty mediocre country?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.29  author  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.28    2 weeks ago

Why make such ridiculous comments?   Do you not understand that this article is about securing a decent candidate for the GoP?    Do you actually believe that the best person for the USA president is Trump??

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.1.30  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.29    2 weeks ago

When did I say that I wanted Trump ? I do think his policies were and are better anything the democrats have come up with. One of his policies was to put America's interests first in negotiations with others. Another was to keep America safe and to secure it borders to stem the flow of illegal aliens and illegal drugs. He also wanted to get manufacturing jobs back to the states. He also had us energy independent and not dependent of foreign oil . I will vote for the candidates that also embraces those goals.

Are you trying to tell me you don't want any of that? Why not?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.31  author  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.30    2 weeks ago
When did I say that I wanted Trump ? 

Your communication is vague.   You ask me why I do not want MAGA when I have said nothing about MAGA but I have talked of Trump.   That means you equate Trump with MAGA.   Your question to me implies that you want MAGA and thus Trump (by your own binding of Trump with MAGA).

Are you trying to tell me you don't want any of that? 

No, I am trying to tell you what I wrote in the article.   Read it.   The article is brief and easy to read.   The message is that the GoP is harming itself by not pushing Trump aside (and, worse, by defending / excusing him).

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.1.32  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.31    2 weeks ago
MAGA 

I will go out on a limb and assume you know what that word stands for. But for the other liberals out there I'll tell you;

M.Stands for make. 

A. Stands for America . You know this country the United States of America.

G. Stands for great. To be superior.

A. Stands for again. To return or do again. 

That is what I want. That may have been a slogan used by Trump but it is a excellent goal for this country regardless of who uses it.

All I see liberals do is denigrate that word. I would like to know why the left does not want America to be great. 

Is it just to be contrary?

Is it so other countries don't feel bad or inferior.(BTW I don't care if they do)

Is it just because Trump used that in his campaign? 

 I have said nothing about MAGA 

Not true. This is from your comment to Nerm_l in 5.1.21

I on the other hand have, until this comment, not mentioned MAGA. 

Now will you answer my questions or will you duck them like usual. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.33  author  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.32    2 weeks ago

You are blabbering.   I want our nation to be as strong and successful as possible.    

Not true. 

This article has nothing to do with MAGA.   It is about Trump and the GoP.   Nowhere does the article mention MAGA.   My responding to a poster who equated Trump with MAGA has nothing to do with the article itself.

My comment (and this article) is about Trump being bad for the GoP and bad for the USA.

Your support of Trump helps him be in reach of the GoP nomination.   If Trump gets the nomination, he will likely lose in the general (meaning the D will win).  Your support of Trump amplified by others who think like you will be the reason.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.32    2 weeks ago

Question.

In your opinion, how far back in time do you need to go to find American

greatness that would make you feel better about your country?  1945? 1969?

MAGA the slogan only appeals to the currently aggrieved socially and financially

while it insults both those who are successful and satisfied and the poorest

minorities who haven't shared in that greatness yet.

It's as divisive as labelling anyone as deplorable.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @5    2 weeks ago
The 2024 election may resolve the fight within the Republican Party.  If it does then God have mercy on Democrats because Republicans are going to demand a mountain of political payback.

Wow. You think that the demise of the Republican Party because of trumpism demands "political payback"?

How about the rest of us pay these asshole trumpsters back for what they have put the country through for the past seven years.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    2 weeks ago

You were your own worst enemies John. Dragging the country through seemingly endless investigations turning up jack shit and trying again and again.  Other than that, please expound on what the "Trumpsters" put the country through. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @5.2    2 weeks ago
Wow. You think that the demise of the Republican Party because of trumpism demands "political payback"? How about the rest of us pay these asshole trumpsters back for what they have put the country through for the past seven years.

It's the demise of an old Republican Party.  The Republican base is moving on and the party will likely emerge much stronger.  Boomer politics is fading fast.

What have Republicans put the country through for the last seven years?   Democrats are the ones who have their hair-on-fire.

Many Republicans see Abbott sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities as payback by holding Democrat feet to their own fire.  Republicans see the cap on SALT deductions as payback by showing Democrats don't walk their own talk.  Expect more of the same.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

"You were your own worst enemies John. Dragging the country through seemingly endless investigations turning up jack shit and trying again and again.  Other than that, please expound on what the "Trumpsters" put the country through."  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Unreal.  We're seeking justice 'by dragging the country through 'seemingly endless investigations'

Because of all the 'seemingly endless' shit that #45 has pulled and still attempting to pull

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
Because of all the 'seemingly endless' shit that #45 has pulled and still attempting to pull

First of all, you weren't seeking justice. You were seeking to take a duly elected PotUS down and out of office cuz you didn't like him as a person.

Secondly, since the cat seems to have JR's keyboard, perhaps YOU can enlighten the readers of the list of things that the Trumpsters put the country through since you seem to agree with the statement.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.4    2 weeks ago
First of all, you weren't seeking justice. You were seeking to take a duly elected PotUS down and out of office cuz you didn't like him as a person.

It never was about "justice".  That's the feel good excuse they use.  Reality is, it is all out of the fact they lost an election.  They had to come up with a story to justify why one of the most horrid candidates Democrats ran lost.  Hence the "Russua Collusion" hoax and "investigation" that we all come to find out was done by the Democrats with the help of the media.  Even now, with the appointment of yet another special council shows it's not about the supposed crimes, it's about keeping Democrats in power.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
Unreal.  We're seeking justice 'by dragging the country through 'seemingly endless investigations'

It's been seven years of continual investigation.  Where's the justice?

Ain't it time to put up or shut up?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
5.2.7  Gazoo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

False

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

Seven years?  WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.9    2 weeks ago

From the time he announced till today STILL, 2022-2015=7 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.8    2 weeks ago

Cute emoji.

Didn't think you could. Expected

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.2.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2.6    2 weeks ago
It's been seven years of continual investigation.  Where's the justice?

That's why yet another "Special Counsel" has been appointed.  They don't FEEL they've gotten justice for anything they've fabricated.  

In essence, it's an abuse of power.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.10    2 weeks ago

Wasn't talking to you.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.13    2 weeks ago

I guess you may need a refresher course on how a forum such as this works.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.14    2 weeks ago

Nerm doesn't need your help making up nonsense and bullshit.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.11    2 weeks ago

Didn't think I could what?

I proved you wrong, as usual.

Handed you your ass, as usual.

Your statement was false, as usual.  "First of all, you weren't seeking justice. You were seeking to take a duly elected PotUS down and out of office cuz you didn't like him as a person."

False, as usual

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
5.2.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.16    2 weeks ago

Didn't think you could answer this part of my comment to you..........

"Secondly, since the cat seems to have JR's keyboard, perhaps YOU can enlighten the readers of the list of things that the Trumpsters put the country through since you seem to agree with the statement."

You didn't like him as a person and he beat the anointed one. Had to get him out of office no matter the price.

You proving me wrong. hahahaha I think not in this lifetime. You proved nothing except that you won't accept the truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.18  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.12    2 weeks ago

If Trump is nominated by the GoP, will that help or harm the GoP?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.18    2 weeks ago

And what does that have to do with 5.2.12?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.20  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.19    2 weeks ago

That was my extremely gentle and subtle way of encouraging you to get on topic.   Your @5.2.12 has nothing to do with this article.

Topical question:  If Trump is nominated by the GoP, will that help or harm the GoP?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.17    2 weeks ago
Again, you're wrong.
As usual.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.2.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.20    2 weeks ago

5.2.12 is on topic with 5.2.6.  I guess you don't know how conversations work.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.22    2 weeks ago

Not one of your comments have been on this topic.   I have been very tolerant.   So, given your pissy response, make a comment on the topic or leave

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.2.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.23    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.25  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.23    2 weeks ago

kudos, I have got to learn how to do that fade out deletion...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.26  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @5.2.25    2 weeks ago

aka troll ghosting...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @5    2 weeks ago

Jesus, yes we know you are pulling for Russia and Putin, fuck off already. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6  Right Down the Center    2 weeks ago

Assuming that Trump would lose in the general election in two years without even knowing the opponent seems more like wishful thinking that any insight into the future.  It seems if the democrats really believed that and the fact they have shown a propensity to back Republicans in primaries they felt would lose in the general election should we expect to see democrats support Donald for the nomination?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 weeks ago
Assuming that Trump would lose in the general election

Donald Trump tried to overturn the proper functioning of the United States government, tried to extort election officials into helping him steal the election, and sat idly by while a riot that he had inspired took place at the national legislature. And you think there is inadequate reason to assume he would lose the 24 election?  God help America if you are right. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago

And you think there is inadequate reason to assume he would lose the 24 election?  

What I think is just because that may be the over riding factor for you it may not be for the majority of voting Americans. I think the overall apathy toward the Jan 6th committee showed that.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2  Sunshine  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 weeks ago
Assuming that Trump would lose in the general election in two years without even knowing the opponent seems more like wishful thinking that any insight into the future. 

It does seem to be a premature conclusion.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2    2 weeks ago

Sure, it is possible that Trump could win the general election.   To do so, the Ds would have to put up a candidate that is worse than a former PotUS who tried to steal a US election:

  • claimed that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system
  • agitated his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised
  • tried to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)
  • tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • tried to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors
  • tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states
  • encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)
  • tweeted that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection
  • refused to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours

While possible, it is unlikely that the D party will nominate someone worse than Trump.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

We know your bullet points.  You repeat them as much as possible.

Trying to steal an election seems to be your only negative point about Trump.   Nobody cared about the Jan 6th hearings.  Not sure why you think anyone will care in the future.

While possible, it is unlikely that the D party will nominate someone worse than Trump.

There is always another Hillary....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.2    2 weeks ago
Trying to steal an election seems to be your only negative point about Trump. 

That is the only negative I would need.   Any sitting PotUS who tried to steal a US election is disqualified IMO.   I wonder why you would even consider voting for someone who tried to steal a US presidential election.

And it is good that you possibly have noticed that I have not complained about Trump's policies but rather his integrity and his narcissistic / unpatriotic / harmful acts.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.3    2 weeks ago
That is the only negative I would need.   

I thought you were talking about the nation.  As I already stated, very little attention has been given to Jan 6th.  Your prediction that Trump will lose is premature IMO.  There are still many unkown variables to come.  

 I wonder why you would even consider voting for someone who tried to steal a US presidential election.

Please provide where I stated I did...you can state your own opinions but not mine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.4    2 weeks ago

Would you consider voting for Trump?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.6  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

No. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.6    2 weeks ago

Why then does it bother you when I and others in the nation note Trump's negative actions such as his Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI documents?   Given you clearly do not want Trump as the GoP nominee, does it not serve your purposes if those running interference and supporting Trump were lessened?

Stated differently, those who continue to support, defend, and/or excuse Trump enable him to potentially achieve plurality and then take the only GoP presidential nomination slot available for 2024.   Would you not applaud efforts to ensure Trump does not find his way into the nomination?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.8  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.7    2 weeks ago
Why then does it bother you when I and others in the nation note Trump's negative actions such as his Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI documents?   

Again you are making assumptions based on what comments exactly?   Post my comments and we will discuss your observation. 

Given you clearly do not want Trump as the GoP nominee, does it not serve your purposes if those running interference and supporting Trump were lessened?

I should attack someone because they support Trump?  That isn't my thing.  That seems to be your thing, attacking the supporter not Trump.  There are many good points about Trump from others.

We will stop discusses me now unless you can provide comments to support your remarks.  

You may discuss yourself though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.8    2 weeks ago
Again you are making assumptions based on what comments exactly?   Post my comments and we will discuss your observation. 

When you make comments objecting to my article it is no great assumption that you disagree with it.

I should attack someone because they support Trump? 

Where, exactly, do you see me suggesting that?

My point, obviously, is that those who are supporting / defending / excusing Trump are enabling him to be the nominee.   Thus anyone who does not want Trump to be the nominee should be opposed to those who support / defend and excuse Trump.

Thus one would expect that you would applaud the idea that people should move away from Trump and rally behind a different GoP candidate.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.10  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.9    2 weeks ago
When you make comments objecting to my article it is no great assumption that you disagree with it.

So disagreeing with someone is equal to bothersome in your mind. 

wow, doing your afternoon stretches?

384

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.10    2 weeks ago
So disagreeing with someone is equal to bothersome in your mind. 

Disagreeing with an article does suggest that you object to the content.   So it is no great leap to conclude that you object to me listing Trump's Big Lie campaign wrongdoing.

So let's be clear, does it bother you when I and others in the nation note Trump's negative actions in his Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI document handling? 

If so, why?

If not, why make snide comments in response?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.7    2 weeks ago
Why then does it bother you when I and others in the nation note Trump's negative actions such as his Big Lie campaign and TS/SCI documents?   Given you clearly do not want Trump as the GoP nominee, does it not serve your purposes if those running interference and supporting Trump were lessened?

Maybe that because Trump's actions are unimportant for the purpose of defending Trump.  Support for Trump isn't just about beating Democrats.  

Stated differently, those who continue to support, defend, and/or excuse Trump enable him to potentially achieve plurality and then take the only GoP presidential nomination slot available for 2024.   Would you not applaud efforts to ensure Trump does not find his way into the nomination?

Well, stated differently, if there aren't any MAGA contenders then Trump's chance of being the nominee is greatly improved.  So, the relevant question becomes will there be MAGA contenders?  Right now it appears there will be.  But it's waaay too early to make any sort of predictions.

Anyone that prevents the Republican Party backsliding into the politics of Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, or Romney will have earned applause.  Any Republican candidate that can turn MAGA into a solid policy agenda will be hailed as the new leader of the Republican Party.  Democrats will do just about anything to thwart that.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.13  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.11    2 weeks ago
Disagreeing with an article does suggest that you object to the content.   So it is no great leap to conclude that you object to me listing Trump's Big Lie campaign wrongdoing.

Gosh, are you always obtuse? I disagreed about your conclusion that Trump will lose.  That bothers you not me, since you are going on and on about it with no logical explanations.

Can you not accept differing opinions?

So it is no great leap to conclude that you object to me listing Trump's Big Lie campaign wrongdoing.

I am sure you believe that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.12    2 weeks ago

Do you think it is beneficial for the GoP to continue to support / excuse / defend Trump per the Big Lie campaign?

Do you want Trump to have a chance at the nomination?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6.2.15  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.12    2 weeks ago

“Maybe that because Trump's actions are unimportant for the purpose of defending Trump.”

An honest response, if only in admitting that character, honesty, and leadership are somehow ignorantly irrelevant or not  at least a prerequisite. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.13    2 weeks ago

I recommend this be your final snark / personal reply.    

Do you object to me listing Trump's Big Lie campaign wrongdoing?  If so, why?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
6.2.17  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.16    2 weeks ago
I recommend this be your final snark / personal reply.    

I recommend you re-read my comments and don't reply.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.2.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sunshine @6.2.10    2 weeks ago

Stretching is important when someone is going to start their twisted circular logic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.18    2 weeks ago

How is asking you if Trump tried to steal (or "win" illegitimately) the election circular logic?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 weeks ago
Assuming that Trump would lose in the general election in two years without even knowing the opponent seems more like wishful thinking that any insight into the future. 

It is not a certainty, but surely you recognize that a 78 year old Trump's chances of winning a general election after all he did in his Big Lie, TS/SCI documents, etc. is slim.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.3.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.3    2 weeks ago
It is not a certainty, but surely you recognize that a 78 year old Trump's chances of winning a general election after all he did in his Big Lie, TS/SCI documents, etc. is slim

I would need about 2 more years and know who the dem nominee was to even guess. I would question if any nominee would beat him and joe would be a liability if he was the nominee based on polls about people not really wanting him to run. Voters are a fickle lot with short memories. The idea that the big lie and document issues would be the overriding factor in 2 years strikes me as a bit ridiculous. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.3.1    2 weeks ago
The idea that the big lie and document issues would be the overriding factor in 2 years strikes me as a bit ridiculous. 

That is a sad note ... to think that the electorate would vote into office the only person in US history who has tried to steal a US election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.2    2 weeks ago

We are going to have to give up on some of these people, and just write them off. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

I am confident that many of the Trump supporters are simply defending the GoP.    That is, if they were to admit the truth about Trump they would, in their minds, be doing a disservice to the GoP by acknowledging that the 'opposition' was correct about Trump.

That explains the over-the-top irrational responses we see routinely.    After all, if someone cannot even acknowledge that Trump engaged in wrongdoing with his Big Lie campaign and the TS/SCI security compromise they clearly are willing to compromise their own credibility (fall on the sword) to defend the GoP.   They will look foolish rather than acknowledge a negative against their party.

So, if by 'write them off' you mean that they will actually support Trump, I do not think it is that bad.   I suspect many who support Trump in forums like this will not vote for him in the primary.   In the primary, they can be honest to themselves.   In forums, they have 'a cause' that they must defend and an 'enemy' that they must always fight (must always disagree with).

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.4    2 weeks ago
So, if by 'write them off' you mean that they will actually support Trump, I do not think it is that bad.

I mean write them off because they are not persuadable nor do they have interest in hearing the facts. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.5    2 weeks ago

Given that meaning, I wrote 'them' off a long time ago.   It is obvious who wants to actually discuss topics and who is simply arguing and snarking.

This article intentionally posed a very simple notion:  nominating Trump is bad for the GoP so supporting/defending/excusing Trump is bad for the GoP.

Note how many GoP members are willing to acknowledge this obvious notion.   Fascinating, eh?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.3.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.2    2 weeks ago

Two people can often look at events or data and come to different conclusions and hold different levels of importance with regards to them.

In other words not everyone thinks like you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.3.7    2 weeks ago

Did Trump try to steal the election in 2020?

Would you vote for someone who, as PotUS, tried to steal an election he lost?

Would nominating Trump help or harm the GoP?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.3.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.8    2 weeks ago

Was he trying to figure out ways to be the winner of the election.  Yep.  Did he actually plan a coup thinking a couple hundred people in the capital would make it happen?  Do you really believe he thought democracy is so fragile that there was a chance something like that would work?

I will let you know if and when that happens after an actual bi partisan investigation into the matter and not a group of people that started with a conclusion and then looked for ways to support it.

It would harm the GOP.  My hope is that there is enough push back to make him realize there is no chance for him to win or to run as an independent therefore ruining any chance of the GOP taking the white house in 2024 and back out.

Now my question for you: Do you think Donald had any positive achievements in the 4 years he was president?  When is the last time you voted for a republican in an election, any election?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.3.9    2 weeks ago
Was he trying to figure out ways to be the winner of the election.  Yep.  Did he actually plan a coup thinking a couple hundred people in the capital would make it happen?  Do you really believe he thought democracy is so fragile that there was a chance something like that would work?

A fine example of providing cover for Trump at the expense of the GoP.   Trump apologetics.

I will let you know if and when that happens after an actual bi partisan investigation into the matter and not a group of people that started with a conclusion and then looked for ways to support it.

More apologetics ...  "Trump did nothing wrong unless determined by a court of law".   But he did do wrong (many times and obviously) and we can all determine that without a finding of legal guilt.

It would harm the GOP. 

Indeed!

My hope is that there is enough push back to make him realize there is no chance for him to win or to run as an independent therefore ruining any chance of the GOP taking the white house in 2024 and back out.

My hope as well.

Now my question for you: Do you think Donald had any positive achievements in the 4 years he was president?  When is the last time you voted for a republican in an election, any election?

Of course, Trump executed the GoP playbook (as would any GoP PotUS) and there are of course good things in the GoP platform (as there are good things in the D platform).   For example, encouraging domestic business (in the abstract) is net good (how that is done is relevant though).   I would be more enthusiastic if Trump had actually curtailed the growing national debt but he wound up blowing it up.

So where have you seen me criticize Trump's policies?   Never see that?   How odd, right?  Kind of of messes up your presumptive stereotype.   So why do you presume that I am a D and that I vote for Ds?   As a rule, I never state online who I vote for, but in the abstract, nobody would deem me a D partisan based on my voting history.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.3.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.10    2 weeks ago

Let me reiterate not everyone thinks like you, that does not make them Trump apologetics.

Also,  I did not accuse you of anything, just asked you a question or two to better understand you.  I know many many many people here like to make accusations about people based on a few comments but I would rather ask the question up front rather than accuse and put someone on the defensive.  I have learned asking the question usually gets a more honest response, as I answered your questions honestly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.3.11    2 weeks ago
... that does not make them Trump apologetics

Making excuses for Trump is Trump apologetics.

... as I answered your questions honestly.

And I responded honestly.


Do you recognize that Trump is relevant only because he has people who support and defend him?   Many of his supporters are die-hard and will remain no matter what (I think he really could shoot someone and they would support him).   Others, however, are quite capable of shifting loyalties.   But those who diminish the severity of his Big Lie campaign actions reduce the likelihood that he will lose supporters.   

This should be obvious.   A PotUS tried to steal a presidential election for the first time in US history.   He did this with a variety of methods for about two months.   The wrongdoing is blatantly obvious and waaaaay over-the-top.   Such an act should, in any rational mind, eliminate Trump from consideration for that office.    But if people continue to deflect and downplay then they wind up dulling the sharp edge.   They are, in effect, providing cover for Trump to continue to rally support for the nomination (even if they do not support Trump).

This should be obvious, but (obviously) it is not.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.3.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.12    2 weeks ago

Then we don't define making excuses for Trump the same.

Who knows why Trump is relevant.  Maybe they think he is best for their own best interests.  Maybe they don't like the government and like to see a shakeup.  Maybe they are not believing all the negative things the press says about him because they don't trust the press. Maybe they think the Trump commission is a sham and they just don't like to see someone get railroaded. Maybe they like the fact he can afford Stormy Daniels.   I don't presume to speak for others.  I can speak for myself and I wish he would go away.  

I am not sure I buy into "But those who diminish the severity of his Big Lie campaign actions reduce the likelihood that he will lose supporters". I think there are plenty of people that are shifting loyalties even though the big lie is not a major factor(maybe a minor factor though).  I think you are seeing it now after he said he was running and called Desantis a name. I seem to have heard there are now never again Trumpers making an appearance.  There is a certain point when the baggage outweighs the good, maybe Donald is finally there  . Although that is just conjecture on my part. 

You seem to keep going back to people should interpret things as you have because it is so "obvious"  or "rational" to you.  I suggest people holding onto what ever they believe also do it because they think it is "obvious" or "rational" to them and believe your interpretation is neither "obvious" or "rational".

Who is right?  As always the truth is probably someplace in the middle and everyone gets to make that decision for themselves.  And as far as I am concerned that is OK.  I won't try and shove my "obvious" and "rational" views down anyone's throat and I won't try and swallow anyone's views just because they seem to think they are "obvious" and "rational".  

And don't even get me started with the way some people throw around the term "fact" or "FACT" somehow thinking the capital letters make it indisputable.  :-)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.3.13    2 weeks ago
I think there are plenty of people that are shifting loyalties ...

I suspect so too.

You seem to keep going back to people should interpret things as you have because it is so "obvious"  or "rational" to you.  I suggest people holding onto what ever they believe also do it because they think it is "obvious" or "rational" to them and believe your interpretation is neither "obvious" or "rational".

This is the third time you have made this about me.   This is the first time, now, that I point this out.   It does not matter if people think like me.   Focus not on me but on the facts and logic:

If Trump gets the nomination, that will be net bad for the GoP.   You can either agree or not.   It looks like you agree.

If people keep making excuses / deflecting / supporting Trump, he will have a chance to secure the nomination.   Not sure you agree with that but I find it odd that anyone would not see this.

I won't try and shove my "obvious" and "rational" views down anyone's throat ...

Just knock it off.   This is a forum for opinions.  You have been 'shoving' your "not everyone thinks like you" down my throat while complaining that I am making a strong argument.   

If you disagree with my argument you are of course welcome to make a counter-argument.   Just don't make it personal.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.3.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

Good idea. I have written off trying to have logical discourse with several people here for quite awhile

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    2 weeks ago

The Dems are, rightly IMO, betting on the "anyone but Trump" vote. I think it will pay off for them again. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.4    2 weeks ago

I hope not since that means Trump would have been the nominee.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.4.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @6.4.1    2 weeks ago

The GOP is sick as shit, we can't hlp them but only hope that eventually the fever breaks.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.4.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.4.2    2 weeks ago

I agree, the GoP is still broken and dysfunctional.   What amazes me is how many resist the first step in healing:  dropping Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

One more time......

Trump's delusional hard core election denier base is not large enough to secure the nomination for him.

DeSantis will stay quiet and ignore all the drama until Spring.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @7    2 weeks ago
Trump's delusional hard core election denier base is not large enough to secure the nomination for him.

Explain how you know this.   Trump need only win a plurality to secure the nomination.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
7.2  pat wilson  replied to  Greg Jones @7    2 weeks ago
not large enough

42% of republicans identify as MAGA republicans. That's a considerable chunk.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
7.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  pat wilson @7.2    2 weeks ago

"42% of republicans identify as MAGA republicans."

Explain how you know this.  JR says it's only 30%.  jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
7.2.2  pat wilson  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2.1    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @7    2 weeks ago
Trump's delusional hard core election denier base

... are the morons that consistently vote in GOP primaries.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Greg Jones @7    2 weeks ago

But it is easily enough of a base to fuck over any GOP candidate that isnt Trump. The funny thing is some of you all think donald trump is concerned about anything but himself. He is the most self absorbed asshole of all time, he is selfishness personified, He will definitely launch a 3rd party bid (if for no other reason than to try and stay out of prison) just to fuck over the eventual GOP nominee. Trump is a spiteful cunt, the worst of all human traits allowed to the front. Never forget that. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  JBB    2 weeks ago

If the gop nominates Trump Biden wins 2nd term!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
8.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @8    2 weeks ago
If the gop nominates Trump Biden wins 2nd term!

At then 82, if his polling stays in the low 40's, he will be challenged for the Dem nomination by someone younger and further left than Biden.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
8.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1    2 weeks ago

More than likely, Gavin Newsom. That's all the country needs. The way of the radical west.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1.2  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1    2 weeks ago

The Democrats will nominate the man proven to be capable of whooping Trump if the gop is doomed to nominate Trump...

Newsom might be best to beat Desantis.

Judging by November 8th, there are no states won by Biden that are trending towards the gop. In fact, the opposite!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
8.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
Judging by November 8th, there are no states won by Biden that are trending towards the gop. In fact, the opposite!

I've made no predictions about what Party will win the WH in 2024.  

Were all the Repub House gains in red states?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

What happened in Miami-Dade wasn't a fluke, and the trend is likely to spread

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
8.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @8    2 weeks ago

Interesting.  I wonder if things don't change in the next two years and the dems stick with biden then trump might have a decent shot to win. Might be time for a libertarian. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @8.2    2 weeks ago

Trouble is the choice (realistically) will still be only between the D and the R.   If we have Biden vs. Trump then one can only hope that the V.P. candidates are decent.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
9  Drinker of the Wry    2 weeks ago

Gavin is laying the groundwork nationally.  Additionally:

  • Bernie still dreams
  • Pete Buttigieg if Biden steps aside
  • AOC might have an unwaxed hair up her ass and makes a feeble attempt
  • Cory Booker probably hasn't given up yet

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
9.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9    2 weeks ago

“Pete Buttigieg. Pete Buttigieg if Biden steps aside”

Let it be Pete Buttigieg.

The one man who has the mental acuity, the gravitas, and the eloquence required to unite rather than further the divide. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
9.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @9.1    2 weeks ago

So are you saying that Jimmy Carter II is the way to go? Wait make that Jimmy Carter III. We already have II. And he is just as big a pussy as Carter was. And gets as many if not more chuckles at the mention of his name worldwide.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

Is there any D candidate put forward that you would not ridicule?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
9.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.2    2 weeks ago

Damned good question. You have a list to choose from? I'll gladly respond to each.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.3    2 weeks ago

I have no list.   But since you did not even name a single D I have my answer.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
9.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.3    2 weeks ago
Damned good question.

Is there any politician that can't be ridiculed?  jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @9.1.5    2 weeks ago

Anyone can be ridiculed.   The question is really if there is any candidate that he would NOT ridicule.   In other words, a candidate that would / could be criticized for political positions but would not likely be ridiculed.    Would you, for example, ridicule Amy Klobuchar?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
9.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.4    2 weeks ago
I have my answer.

No you don't. Who is actually running. Then you'll get your answer.........and mine

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
9.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.6    2 weeks ago
I have my answer.

Just what the hell do you think I criticized Buttigieg and Biden for? Policies. Being they are candy asses when it comes to the hard stuff...........Like trade equalization, NATO contributions, the Norks, China. Not to mention South Bend, Indiana's greatness with Mayor Pete. And have you seen any stories coming out of California?

As Far as Klobuchar, no thanks unless she's changed since her last run. If Tulsi Gabbard hadn't jumped ship it seems, she would make me think twice prior to voting for whatever R was the candidate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.8    2 weeks ago
Just what the hell do you think I criticized Buttigieg and Biden for? Policies.

This  is what you consider to be an adult critique of policies?

JustJim @9.1.1So are you saying that Jimmy Carter II is the way to go? Wait make that Jimmy Carter III. We already have II. And he is just as big a pussy as Carter was. And gets as many if not more chuckles at the mention of his name worldwide.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
9.1.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.9    2 weeks ago

Yep. If it weren't for their approach on matters due to their policies and beliefs, I may have a change of heart. But at this point, I think I've seen enough unless something changes between now and 2024.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
9.1.11  afrayedknot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.10    2 weeks ago

“I may have a change of heart.”

Just name it and claim it, just jim…

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.10    2 weeks ago

What you write, Jim, is what matters.   A criticism on policy would be just that:  stating a policy and noting what you find wrong in it.  For example, some criticize Carter for being too focused on government processes and not properly focused on what would actually manifest as good for the American people.   Calling someone a pussy or merely comparing them to the derogatory partisan caricature of Carter held by the GoP is simply juvenile ridicule.   

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
9.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.12    2 weeks ago

Opinions do vary........greatly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.13    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

At least come up with your own platitude.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Participates
9.1.15  George  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.13    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.2    2 weeks ago
"Is there any D candidate put forward that you would not ridicule?"

Of course not.

I think Buttigieg is ideal as far as candidates go.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.12    2 weeks ago
"Calling someone a pussy or merely comparing them to the derogatory partisan caricature of Carter held by the GoP is simply juvenile ridicule."  

That's all some have.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
9.1.19  arkpdx  replied to  afrayedknot @9.1    2 weeks ago

He couldn't run a city properly and he sure is doing a poor job at transportation secretary.  Why would you want him. Because he's gay?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9    2 weeks ago

Bernie, Pete, Cory & AOC supported Biden in 20!

There is no reason to think they wouldn't, again.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
9.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @9.2    2 weeks ago
There is no reason to think they wouldn't, again.

P:erhaps their ambitions are stronger than yours.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.2.2  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.1    2 weeks ago

Why do my personal ambitions matter?

My only ambition is that Democrats win.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
9.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @9.2.2    2 weeks ago
Why do my personal ambitions matter?

They want to be president and you don't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @9.2.2    2 weeks ago
Why do my personal ambitions matter?

They don't. What he was alluding to, since we have never heard of you running for higher office, is that those people may be more ambitious in that regard.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Keep defending Trump

Which as we see here on a daily basis, means gives progressives free reign to lie about all things Trump.  Sticking up for reality  turns one into  a "Trump defender."

Point out that the media censored and lied about the Biden laptop and you are "defending Trump"  Point out that Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and any Russian to interfere in the 2016 election and you are defending Trump. Point out the FBI lied to the FISA Court in order to spy on Trump and you are "defending Trump."  Point out the "Steele Dossier" was worthless propaganda paid for by Hillary Clinton and you are defending Trump etc etc....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago
Sticking up for reality  turns one into  a "Trump defender."

Reality:

Trump is a former PotUS who tried to steal a US election:

  • claimed that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system
  • agitated his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised
  • tried to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)
  • tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • tried  to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors
  • tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states
  • encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)
  • tweeted that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection
  • refused to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours

Stick up for that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    2 weeks ago
tick up for that.

Nice deflection!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

I stated explicitly what I mean by defending Trump.    You ignored it.

In contrast, not once here or on this site have I listed anything in your list as examples of improperly defending Trump.

The 800lb gorilla in the room is the Big Lie campaign.   Followed by the violation of the PRA and compromising national security.

Was it wrong for Trump to do what I listed @10.1 per his Big Lie campaign?   Would you defend his actions?   Would you defend his taking of TS/SCI documents (compromising national security) and not fully cooperating immediately on their safe return?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    2 weeks ago
 Would you defend his actions?   Would you defend his taking of TS/SCI documents (compromising national security) and not fully cooperating immediately on their safe return?

Have I ever?  Stealing elections is bad.  It was bad when LBJ did it. It was bad when JFK did it.  Didn't seem to bother Democrats much though.  I'm one of the few people who thinks the mishandling of classified information  and not fully cooperating with investigators is disqualifying  no matter what the letter is after their name.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
11  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Who here is defending Trump?  jrSmiley_51_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @11    2 weeks ago

Although there are (obviously) members who defend/excuse/support Trump, members of this forum are irrelevant to the nomination.   This article is about the GoP nomination and then the subsequent general election.   

I am talking about the electorate.    Is it your position that Trump has an insignificant amount of people defending / supporting / excusing him?

If Trump support were insignificant then he has no chance to secure the nomination and all is well.   Illustrate how this is the case.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
11.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    2 weeks ago

Forgive them, TiG, for they know not what they do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

How many GoP members have come into this article and honestly acknowledge that it is best for the GoP to drop its support / excuses / defense of Trump so that the GoP can, with certainty, have someone other than Trump as their 2024 nominee?

How much deflection and other nonsense in response to the intentionally narrow focus of this brief article on that single posit?

I do wonder how many in the GoP understand that supporting / excusing / defending Trump enables him and that if he were to secure the nomination (plurality is all that is needed) he will hand the presidency to the D candidate?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Junior Expert
11.1.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.2    2 weeks ago
How much deflection and other nonsense in response to the intentionally narrow focus of this brief article on that single posit?

The deflections indicate that they are defending the indefensible.

They still support Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.1.3    2 weeks ago
They still support Trump.

Could be.   Another possibility is that people defend Trump because they believe doing so defends the GoP.

On top of that, many probably have a hard time admitting that the GoP totally screwed up with Trump.   Thus if they cease defending Trump they are 'admitting' that the GoP has sold it soul (so to speak).

Whatever it is, I remain amazed that some will compromise their integrity and make utterly foolish comments rather than simply acknowledge the obvious.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Greg Jones @11    2 weeks ago
Who here is defending Trump? 

Some people seem to think if you are not going according to their script

                               Democrat
		Do you renounce Trump.

				Republican
		I do renounce him.

				Democrat
		And all his works?

				Republican
		I do renounce them.

Then you are defending him. Personally I would like to know what Donald's involvement in
Jan 6th was.
I would like to have the Trump supporters on the commission to try and spin everything
that was presented. Then I would have all the information in order to make an informed
decision and not just be spoon fed only one side and expected to swallow it. Of course
Nancy made that
impossible. I have to wonder why she was so afraid for all the information
to be made public.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2    2 weeks ago

Defending Trump is not a complicated notion.   

Downplaying his wrongdoing, making excuses for it, deflecting from it, etc. is defending Trump.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.1    2 weeks ago

Wanting to hear all the information before making a decision as to what his wrong doing was is not so complicated either.  Why do you think so many people here are so against the idea?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.2    2 weeks ago
Wanting to hear all the information before making a decision as to what his wrong doing was is not so complicated either.  Why do you think so many people here are so against the idea?

You watched most of this happen.   You mean to tell me that you cannot already determine that Trump tried to steal the election and that what he did was wrong and that he should never be allowed to return to the Oval office??

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.2    2 weeks ago
Why do you think so many people here are so against the idea?

Because in their minds, Trump is guilty of whatever shit they can throw against the walls. Facts be damned.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.3    2 weeks ago
You mean to tell me that you cannot already determine that Trump tried to steal the election and that what he did was wrong and that he should never be allowed to return to the Oval office??

I don't agree with what Donald did but I want more information before I make that determination.  I am skeptical since Nancy was so against all the information coming out and will withhold a final judgement until I have all the information and answers I want.  If it was such a slam dunk she should not have had a problem with Donald supporters and the whole idea of promoting this as bipartisan is laughable

Why do you think so many people are against an actual fair and bipartisan investigation?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.4    2 weeks ago

Do you think it is good for the GoP if Trump wins the nomination?

Do you think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election?

Do you think that was wrong and should disqualify him from being PotUS again?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.4    2 weeks ago

It is interesting that they are so concerned about all the facts coming out or at least listening to Donald supporters of congress try to spin it to his advantage and let the people decide if they buy it or not.  Seems like they just want to be believed and not have people actually come to their own conclusion based on what they hear for themselves.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.5    2 weeks ago

Kevin McCarthy wanted to put right wing conspiracy clowns on the Jan 6 committee in order to disrupt it and cause chaos. Pelosi did not want the hearings to become a travesty, so she rejected Jim Jordan. Simple as that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.6    2 weeks ago

No, no, and no.

Why do you bother to ask, you’ll just tell me what my position is no matter the response?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.5    2 weeks ago
I don't agree with what Donald did but I want more information before I make that determination. 

Really?   You cannot tell from news coverage alone that Trump tried to steal the election?   You were able to listen to the entire Raffensperger phone call.  You watched Dusty Bowers testify under oath (and basically ruin his career) that Trump tried to get him to submit fake electors.   You saw Trump repeatedly flat out lie about the 'rigged election' and influence his supporters (as PotUS) that the US electoral system disenfranchised them and that they must fight back.   You saw 61 frivolous lawsuits (due to ridiculous and unevidenced claims).  You saw his tweet throwing Pence under the bus during the insurrection.   You know from Pence, et. al. that Trump tried to suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act.   You saw the insurrection continue for three hours before Trump finally stepped in to stop it and even then he praised the insurrectionists.   You saw Trump never concede the election and continue, to this day, claiming he is the legitimate PotUS.  

The 'more information' game is one of the most common Trump defenses.

You think that Trump may not have tried to steal the 2020 election?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.9    2 weeks ago
  1. Do you think it is good for the GoP if Trump wins the nomination?      You answered:  No
  2. Do you think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election?   You answered:  No
  3. Do you think that was wrong and should disqualify him from being PotUS again?    You answered:  No

The first answer can be easily justified.   The second answer if fascinating.   You claim that you do not think Trump tried to steal the 2020 election.  The last answer is even more amazing ... you do not think what Trump did was wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.11    2 weeks ago

By Jove, I think you did a bang-up job at summarizing my 3 "NO" answers.

Good job.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.8    2 weeks ago
Kevin McCarthy wanted to put right wing conspiracy clowns on the Jan 6 committee in order to disrupt it and cause chaos. Pelosi did not want the hearings to become a travesty, so she rejected Jim Jordan. Simple as that. 

That is the most lame reason I have ever heard for not wanting to get to the truth.  Disrupt and cause chaos?  Were they afraid someone was going to come in with firecrackers? There are controls that would not allowed that to happen and only a certain amount of time people get to talk.  Not having them there to present anything already made the commission a travesty before it ever started.  Simple as that.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
11.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.2    2 weeks ago
Why do you think so many people here are so against the idea?

It's the difference between wanting to see the evidence and facts.  Many (specifically the left) don't care about that.  In their minds he's guilty.  Of what, they don't have a clue but he's guilty. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
11.2.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.8    2 weeks ago
Pelosi did not want the hearings to become a travesty

It became a travesty the minute she started hand picking the "committee".  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @11.2.14    2 weeks ago

Guilt is determined by a court of law.

I asked about wrongdoing.   Wrongdoing is something that can be decided by an individual.   And yes, do so based on the evidence and logic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2    2 weeks ago

Numerous people testified that Trump did nothing to stop or end the Jan 6 violence, even after it was crystal clear what was going on. He sat and watched it on television without any attempt whatsoever to end it. 

That is the testimony of numerous White House insiders.  If Trump feels they are lying about him he is free to make his case, either to the committee or in a media interview. 

He has never addressed this matter. 

What is this "other side" of the story you are trying to refer to? 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.10    2 weeks ago
You think that Trump may not have tried to steal the 2020 election? 

I want to hear all sides, I don't know how else to say it that would make some people understand.  If all the information came out for the American public to see many many more people may be happy to move on from Donald.  By doing it the way they did they have made Donald look like a victim, something I assume was not their goal.

Call it a Trump defense if it makes you feel better. I call it withholding judgement until all the facts are in, something all Americans, including Donald, deserve.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
11.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.16    2 weeks ago
I asked about wrongdoing.

So far, all we've heard are accusations lacking evidence.

Wrongdoing is something that can be decided by an individual.

So it's opinion.  And exactly why should I follow in lockstep with your opinion?

And yes, do so based on the evidence and logic.

Ah.  There lies your problem.  Investigation after investigation hasn't produced enough evidence to convince many people.  And because they don't see things as the left does has caused them to set their hair on fire and lash out at anybody who questions it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.20  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.12    2 weeks ago

Your position is an example of why I wrote this article.    You deny that Trump did any wrong.   You deny that he tried to steal the 2020 election.   Thus you are one of those who defend Trump and make his actions seem acceptable.

Yet you do not want Trump to be the nominee.

original

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.21  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.17    2 weeks ago

The other side is whatever the people that Nancy did not allow on the committee had to say.

As for Donald watching TV for a period of time before doing anything (eventually tweeting to be peaceful) that makes him an asshole, not necessarily guilty of trying to steal an election unless he thought 100 or so people in the capital could actually steal the election.  Personally I don't think our democracy is as fragile as some have been saying lately.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.11    2 weeks ago

Logic dictates that if I don't think he tried to steal the election, then I wouldn't think he should be disqualified from running again.

See how that would work?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.23  Right Down the Center  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @11.2.14    2 weeks ago

It is funny that some people seem to just say you don't need all the information available, you should have enough to condemn the man.  And don't question why anyone seems to be trying to withhold information they would just have no control over what was said.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.24  author  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.18    2 weeks ago
I call it withholding judgement until all the facts are in, something all Americans, including Donald, deserve.

Then you should be unable to opine on anything.   The facts are never 'all in' and most events in life are not adjudicated.   

What is most telling is that there is no denying that Trump was trying to remain as PotUS regardless of the legitimate election results.   That is what is called 'stealing an election'.   The facts supporting that obvious call have been available since Jan 7th, 2021.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.25  author  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @11.2.19    2 weeks ago
So far, all we've heard are accusations lacking evidence.

How can you claim that there is no evidence of Trump's wrongdoing?   Does it not bother you to make such a foolish claim?

You do not have enough evidence to see that Trump attempted, with lies, coercion, fabrication of votes, denial of votes, etc. to stay in office after losing the election?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
11.2.26  Sunshine  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.21    2 weeks ago
The other side is whatever the people that Nancy did not allow on the committee had to say.

Nancy picked 2 Republicans and 7 Democrats...

mmmm..imagine that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.20    2 weeks ago
You deny that Trump did any wrong.

You asked my opinion. If you don't like it, tough.

I didn't deny he did wrong, you asked if I thought he did wrong.

You deny that he tried to steal the 2020 election.   Thus you are one of those who defend Trump and make his actions seem acceptable.

Like has been stated here, if you are going to tell me my position, why bother asking or even being here? You can simply say I do this or think that and argue yourself.

I'll not waste another minute on trying to explain myself to you because it simply doesn't matter-- you have your preconceived notions and nothing can seem to deter you from them, not even facts.

Have fun debating both sides.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.22    2 weeks ago
Logic dictates that if I don't think he tried to steal the election, then I wouldn't think he should be disqualified from running again.

Logic dictates that if you do not want to see Trump get the nomination that you would not pretend that he did not steal the election.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.29  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.27    2 weeks ago
... not even facts.

What facts do you have that shows Trump did not try to steal the 2020 election?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.28    2 weeks ago
Logic dictates that if you do not want to see Trump get the nomination that you would not pretend that he did not steal the election.

I'll not waste another minute on trying to explain myself to you because it simply doesn't matter-- you have your preconceived notions and nothing can seem to deter you from them, not even facts.

Have fun debating both sides.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.31  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.27    2 weeks ago
I didn't deny he did wrong, you asked if I thought he did wrong.

Explain the difference.   If you say that he did not do wrong then how is that different from denying he did wrong?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.32  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.29    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.31    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.34  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.24    2 weeks ago

change "all the facts" to "all the facts I think are needed" if it makes more sense to you, I didn't think I would be taken quite so literally.

Trump was trying to  remain the president.  As I recall Donald was questioning the results of certain areas, something that he has the right to do.  As I recall Al gore did something very similar.  And after all his avenues were explored and shot down the right person was made president.  That in and of itself is not attempting to steal an election.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.2.35  Ender  replied to  Right Down the Center @11.2.23    2 weeks ago

So you think any criticism of donald should all lie on one committee?

What information has been withheld?

He was telling Pence to not certify the election. The people attacked the capitol to stop the transfer of power.

Hell we have trumpers in Arizona right now crying it is all fraud and withholding certification. Even one newly elected person said they would not even vote on anything unless they redo the whole election (I say go for it as it diminishes republican votes in the state).

If you think they can't or won't end up trying, that is not paying attention to what some people are actually trying to do.

They are following trump's playbook.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.36  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sunshine @11.2.26    2 weeks ago
Nancy picked 2 Republicans and 7 Democrats... mmmm..imagine that.

Yea, two republicans that hated Donald so much they were willing to give up their career and go to MSNBC to work (probably) and then they kept touting bipartisan.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.2.37  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @11.2.26    2 weeks ago

I guess we will see how may Dems are put on these newly to be formed investigations.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
11.2.38  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @11.2.37    2 weeks ago
I guess we will see how may Dems are put on these newly to be formed investigations.

I guess we will...since no Dems bitched about Nancy's picks, I guess they won't care about Repubs either.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.2.39  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @11.2.35    2 weeks ago
No
How would we know if it was withheld?  That is why I would rather have heard what they had to say.
Let them say what they want, they still won't be the ones sworn into office.
So they are following a playbook that failed.  That does not seem like a winning strategy.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal