DeSantis 2024?

[BigRed]

I never cast my vote for trump in the past. I fully expect that will not change in the future.

 

[jamil]

I never cast my vote for trump in the past. I fully expect that will not change in the future.

NEVERTRUMPER!

 

[Ingomike]

You've made it clear that you believe Trump ordered this by fiat to appease the squishies, and you think this was a viable strategy compared to standing firm--you know, because Trump is such a stud against squishies. Okay, let's assume you're right. That means that if that was a viable strategy, LG and all the other INGOers who ever advocated compromise in order to fend off worse legislation were also advocating a viable strategy.

So then you should switch to their side of it if you want to maintain consistency. You now have to start agreeing with them because you'd be inconsistent if not. You should not advocate compromising on gun laws so that we appease the anti-gun zealots, so they won't do worse.

I mean, dude, it's okay if your heroes have warts. You can knowledge uncomfortable, but obvious truths, while still finding admirable things about your heroes. You don't have force yourself into inconsistent beliefs just to maintain a perfect image of Trump.

It was an unconstitutional move for him to order the BATF'kers to change a definition by fiat which originated by an act of congress. It is a bad strategy to compromise some rights so that anti-gun zealots won't go after more rights. Trump was flat out wrong. But you guys have to make this into some grand genius move by your hero so that you don't have to admit that he has warts too.

Why is saying what one believes happened being on a side? It WAS a compromise to an end. I personally do not prefer that route but I do believe in this case it held off worse…

 

[Ingomike]

You assume Trump, or even DeSantis, for that matter COULD win in 2024. If GOP does not learn how to make mail-in voting and ballot harvesting work for them, Republicans won't win another national election

BINGO!

 

[Ingomike]

I sure hope so. Trump was a disappointment and I wont be voting for him again if i can help it. Just like any Democrat he said hes pro gun then passed gun control.

Trump was such a disappointment. Yep, the best years of most peoples lives were such a disappointment. Cheap energy (energy=freedom), low food costs, good markets for retirement accounts, the list could go on and on. It was such a disappointment…

 

[jamil]

Why is saying what one believes happened being on a side? It WAS a compromise to an end. I personally do not prefer that route but I do believe in this case it held off worse…

Do you mean, how can I say you're inconsistent because you believe it held off worse (without evidence of it)? Simple. Next time someone starts saying that we should compromise to hold off worse, to be consistent you can't say, no, not one more inch. Because you don't believe that. You believe that it worked this time. That has to be a part of your thinking from here out.

Also, it would be helpful to your case if your belief were based on something concrete. As it's not, could it be that you just want to believe it because you can't envision that Trump could do the wrong thing?

 

[Bugzilla]

Under Trump, the economy was booming, gas was under $2 a gallon, unemployment was at all time lows for all categories, unneeded regulations were being eliminated, the boarder wall was being built, illegal immigrants were at all times lows, interest rates were low, democrats in the swamp were beginning to work across the isle, wages were going up and most important, I was starting to get ahead.

So how was Trump such a disappointment?

 

[Ingomike]

Do you mean, how can I say you're inconsistent because you believe it held off worse (without evidence of it)? Simple. Next time someone starts saying that we should compromise to hold off worse, to be consistent you can't say, no, not one more inch. Because you don't believe that. You believe that it worked this time. That has to be a part of your thinking from here out.

Also, it would be helpful to your case if your belief were based on something concrete. As it's not, could it be that you just want to believe it because you can't envision that Trump could do the wrong thing?

When it was announced that Trump was doing that I called the WH to express my displeasure with that action. I am against the compromise solution. I did not support it.

To explain the compromise to those with TDS accusing Trump of being anti-gun and that he is no different than dems on guns is not supporting the tactic.

 

[Ingomike]

So how was Trump such a disappointment?

The media told him so…

 

[jamil]

Trump was such a disappointment. Yep, the best years of most peoples lives were such a disappointment. Cheap energy (energy=freedom), low food costs, good markets for retirement accounts, the list could go on and on. It was such a disappointment…

Two things can be true at the same time. Trump could have done many good things. Trump could be a disappointment to an honest observer.

Maybe it would be better to ask him in what way Trump was disappointing to him? Being disappointed means that the subject failed to live up to expectations. Doesn't mean that he failed to live up to all expectations. Trump could exceed expectations in some areas and yet be an overall disappointment. I'm not disappointed in Trump myself. I always knew Trump is not close to perfect. He did some things I liked. He did some things I didn't like.

Here's a reason to be disappointed in Trump. His behavior after the election was like a petulant child. His anger over Pence not "fixing" the election was misplaced. I think Trump got poor advice from his lawyers. Righteous indignation about the election was justifiable given the cabal who worked to thwart a fair election. But the difference between how a child reacts in anger and a mature adult should be obvious. I don't know if that's the cause of disappointment, but it is an example of a legitimate cause. One ****up can undermine all accomplishments. Where are we now?

 

[jamil]

When it was announced that Trump was doing that I called the WH to express my displeasure with that action. I am against the compromise solution. I did not support it.

To explain the compromise to those with TDS accusing Trump of being anti-gun and that he is no different than dems on guns is not supporting the tactic.

If you think TDS means anyone who is capable of recognizing anything critical of Trump, I suppose you could think that.

Your explanation of a compromise isn't working because it's nonsense. I don't think Trump is anti-gun. I don't think Trump is as pro-gun as his ardent followers think he is. It was a foolish and unnecessary action. It was an unforced error. It doesn't matter if he thought he was preventing worse gun legislation. It matters that he thought it was the best idea to disregard the constitution and order the BATF'kers to redefine a term codified by an act of congress. He doesn't have the authority to do that.

He demonstrated at least ignorance of his Presidential authorities, or his disregard for the Constitution and rule of law. Either way, this IS a non-trivial strike against him. The mental gymnastics to get around that fact, to preserve the pristine image of Trump's unblemished goodness is astonishing. This kind of devotion looks a lot like and to me.

 

[BugI02]

I know what I've been told by Trumpers was the reason. And that's probably the reason. But my instincts keep telling me that Ivanka's heart bled and so daddy fixed stuff.

What my dispassionate examination of the situation tells me is that it's doubtful that it staved off stronger legislation. Serously. Why would it? They want a AWB. Why would they say, oh, yeah, since you're banning bump stocks used by almost no one, we'll not use this shooting to further pursue our holy grail. It fizzled out because the press eventually dropped the story. Just like it has with every other shooting.
[Perhaps you should think in terms of what Trump knew at the time rather than what you know now if your judging a decision he made at that time, and perhaps consider he wasn't trying to convince Dems not to go after an AWB but keep his own squish Reps from going along with something like that. See: Biden gun control legislation this year. Why did so many Reps go along for that ride? Trump? I think not]
One other thing about their holy grail. I suspect that there may be some reality behind the idea that the DNC is really not as serious as they portray about actually doing an AWB, because it fires up the base in campaign season, and it's great funding fodder. Not that we want to believe that and let our vigilance go dormant. We still need to continually press against anti gun zealots and support organizations that help the fight.

Much like anti-abortion legislation from the Rep side. 'Just give us money and re-elect us and THIS time we'll outlaw abortion for sure. Lather. Rinse. Repeat' McConnell even admitted, in an unguarded moment when pressure to end the filibuster was building, that many things the rank and file wanted would only be brought forward as a scorched earth policy to enact pain if the Dems did undo the fillibuster

To paraphrase an old truism, it's not whether I'm cynical, it's whether I'm cynical enough

 

[jamil]

Under Trump, the economy was booming, gas was under $2 a gallon, unemployment was at all time lows for all categories, unneeded regulations were being eliminated, the boarder wall was being built, illegal immigrants were at all times lows, interest rates were low, democrats in the swamp were beginning to work across the isle, wages were going up and most important, I was starting to get ahead.

So how was Trump such a disappointment?

He predictably played into the hands of the media and gave them 1/6. Not that he planned it. But his rhetoric especially about Pence gives the media and the nation a reason to believe the most uncharitable interpretations of what happened on 1/6. That's a disappointment to people who think he should have behaved better. But it was predictable. I don't find it a disappointment because of course he did that. it's what it is.

Had a sort of debate with some in-laws from commieville. Because of Trump's own words, it's a hard case to make that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection. I don't think it was, but there's a lot of context that must be known that they don't have, that I can't give them. It's a lost argument. And that IS Trump's doing.

 

[Ingomike]

Your explanation of a compromise isn't working because it's nonsense.

We will have to disagree, we both believe the other is saying nonsense…

 

[jamil]

Much like anti-abortion legislation from the Rep side. 'Just give us money and re-elect us and THIS time we'll outlaw abortion for sure. Lather. Rinse. Repeat' McConnell even admitted, in an unguarded moment when pressure to end the filibuster was building, that many things the rank and file wanted would only be brought forward as a scorched earth policy to enact pain if the Dems did undo the fillibuster

To paraphrase an old truism, it's not whether I'm cynical, it's whether I'm cynical enough

This isn't a justification for ordering the BATF'ers to change definitions of terms established by an act of congress. The president doesn't have the power to do that. There's no reason to do all the mental gymnastics to make this more complicated than it is, unless you're trying to make this NOT a wrong move by Trump. It absolutely was.

Why not admit, yeah, Trump ****ed that up. It's not a reason not to vote for him against a bat **** crazy Democrat.

And that's not a truism. In being distrustful for the sake of distrust may occasionally give you the right outcome in the same way a broken clock is right twice a day. But look at all the possible instances of time where it's wrong. And I'm saying that generally, not specific to this topic. I've been called a cynic at work, but the times I've been pessimistic towards the status quo was not just for the sake of pessimism. Always being an optimist towards the status quo is the opposite of cynacism and is just as much folly.

[Perhaps you should think in terms of what Trump knew at the time rather than what you know now if your judging a decision he made at that time, and perhaps consider he wasn't trying to convince Dems not to go after an AWB but keep his own squish Reps from going along with something like that. See: Biden gun control legislation this year. Why did so many Reps go along for that ride? Trump? I think not]

Like I said earlier, it does not matter if he thought he was fending off worse legislation, supported by squishies. It was a wrong action regardless. There was also some discussion that the NRA got him to do it. Maybe so. That doesn't speak well about their regard for the constitution either.

Further, in the absence of evidence that there was forthcoming legislation, and that this action actually stopped it, the only reason left to excuse him is hope. Faith that avoids acknowledging that he chose to do the wrong thing.

 

[jamil]

We will have to disagree, we both believe the other is saying nonsense…

Well yeah. But I'm righter.

 

[BugI02]

So, DeWine flipped three US House seats red and attained a super majority in both state legislatures?

Ohio Senate went from R controlled 25 to 8 to R controlled 26 to 7, both are super majorities so he was ahead of DeSantis' curve

Ohio House went from R controlled 64 to 35 to at least 66 to 33 and possibly as high as 68 to 31 (2 races going to recount), both are super majorities and again DeWine was already ahead of the DeSantis 'benchmark'

In 2020, our House delegation was 12 R to 4D, or 75% R

Florida's was 16 R to 11 D, or 59.3% R

After the census we lost one seat and FL gained one. We are now 10 R to 5D with one lost to court ordered redistricting and one eliminated due to census, at 66% R

Florida is now 20 R to 8D, at 71.4% R. Let me know when they exceed our high water mark

 

[jamil]

What were Trumps accomplishments prior to being elected in 2016?

He's kinda rich. And I heard he ****ed a porn star. Have you ****ed a porn star? I didn't think so.

 

[BugI02]

This isn't a justification for ordering the BATF'ers to change definitions of terms established by an act of congress. The president doesn't have the power to do that. There's no reason to do all the mental gymnastics to make this more complicated than it is, unless you're trying to make this NOT a wrong move by Trump. It absolutely was.

My text imbedded in your post text was in response to the paragraph just above it. The part you have quoted was also directed at the paragraph just above it. You might try to encompass the entire reply, as intended, in your worldview - unless it's just easier to pick and choose the excerpts you WANT to argue with

 

[jamil]

Ohio Senate went from R controlled 25 to 8 to R controlled 26 to 7, both are super majorities so he was ahead of DeSantis' curve

Ohio House went from R controlled 64 to 35 to at least 66 to 33 and possibly as high as 68 to 31 (2 races going to recount), both are super majorities and again DeWine was already ahead of the DeSantis 'benchmark'

In 2020, our House delegation was 12 R to 4D, or 75% R

Florida's was 16 R to 11 D, or 59.3% R

After the census we lost one seat and FL gained one. We are now 10 R to 5D with one lost to court ordered redistricting and one eliminated due to census, at 66% R

Florida is now 20 R to 8D, at 71.4% R. Let me know when they exceed our high water mark

Down-ballot performance is not something that I would attribute to the Governor as much as I would attribute it to the mood of the constituents. I think it's wrong to attribute all the Republican wins in FL to DeSantis, other than whatever he might have done to clean up voter roles and other election protections that would otherwise have advantaged Democrats. Same for DeWine.

The sentiment of constituents obviously went to Republicans this time around. Apparently the adults voted to keep or put saner leadership in office.