Trump 2024 ???

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,626
    113
    central indiana
    Some here,

    "________ Donny! I'm tired of his petty ___________ and LOSING!"
    "Temper tantrum Donny HAND PICKED LOSERS!"

    But there's no such thing as TDS. Whew! Um, ok.
    Some only offer righteous anger with personal, ad hominem attacks all while denying factual outcomes. There's no room for any discussion here. There is simply too much rage and ignorance by some.
     

    Route 45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    92   0   0
    Dec 5, 2015
    14,884
    113
    Indy
    So there is no need for leaders? There is no need for understanding the structure of the issue? Just send in a leaderless team and drain the swamp…
    Draining the swamp is impossible. That's what you don't seem to understand. It's a child-like view of how things really work in DC. You actually think that one man can come in and fundamentally change things.

    Leaders. :):

    The corporations own the government. Somebody on this forum has said that capitalism has defeated conservatism. That's probably close to being true. Not that conservatism needed any help.
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,362
    149
    I've posted this before, but quite some time ago. For you and the guy whose avatar is a little red Honda Fit[?] in motion, when I return to INGO after a break, I pick up reading a thread from where I left off, responding to posts as I encounter them. This will result sometimes in responding to a post that has been in some way superseded but it works for me to keep the posts in a thread in proper sequence in my mind

    Deal or Ignore, not planning to change
    You do you, I've got no problem with it.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    "The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn't care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions"

    To some on here, it matters not if Trump candidates were to win 99 of 100. For the single loss proves unequivocally that Trump is a loser. And for the 99 wins, well, they were to win anyway sayeth the omniscient. It's blind orange rage for which there is no cure.
    Maybe you haven't kept up. I dunno. So I'll assume that's the case since you're attributing a position that no one in this discussion has held.

    This whole back and forth about Trump's endorsements was because many Ardent Trump fans bragged in the primaries when Trump endorsed candidates won. You'd (rhetorically 'you') link an article or whatever and comment, 'winning'. Okay.

    Well. Fair enough. Trump endorsees did well in the primaries. Even in districts with a lot of moderates. And it's noteworthy, with the help of Democrats, because it was their strategy to help candidates that could be tied to Trump win in primaries so they could make the election about Trump.

    So all the success in the primaries for Trumpers, now let's see what good it did after the general election is done. It's fair to point out that we should expect Trump candidates to win the easy races. There's no controversy there. It's expected. And then when that point is raised, *some* Trump fans had to parse the word "expected". I guess because that's not an easy enough concept to grasp on its own.

    The whole point has been that fat lot of good Trump-endorsed candidates have accomplished towards the goal of taking over congress. I don't see Trumpers linking to the results and saying "winning". I see them linking to stories about cheating because candidates they were so sure would must have lost because of cheating. Couldn't possibly be that a Trump-picked candidate could lose on their own because at the minimum. They're **** candidates.

    And that's always been the main point in this discussion raised by the people who have an ability to see faults that you guys can't see, because your devotion to a mere mortal blinds you to reality. We lost a seat in the Senate because Trump picked some losers. That's not "winning". And I'm not saying that Trump's endorsement caused them to lose. I certainly can't find any evidence to support that he helped them make it close. The problem is that the guy you think is "winning" picked some losers.

    So there isn't any need to go dozens of pages to figure that out. It is what it is. Just admit it and move on. Trump picked some losers and that cost us the Senate, and possibly a bigger majority in the House. Those were contested races. But winnable. Because of the economy and people being fed up with woke ********.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    This quoting back and forth thread started with my post on Georgia.

    Trump was butt hurt over Georgia 2020 and set out for revenge... on REPPUBLICANS! His ONLY win in Georgia was Herschel Walker from nowhere to win the primary.

    Other than two Democratic Senators... the state is RED... all state posts and both houses of the legislature. But TWO Dem Senators thanks to Trump's petty tantrums.

    Trump's "wins" gave and continue to give the gavel to Schumer.

    I call that LOSING.
    I thought it started with TB mocking Trumpers about "winning". But it may have started earlier than that.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I see things simply.

    There are red and blue states and districts that barring a catastrophically crappy candidate (like Moore in Alabama or Walker in Georgia), the dominate party just cannot loose without royally ******** the pooch.

    The purple states and districts (toss-ups) determine who controls the Senate or the House (or the White House). Win these and you win control. Lose these and you get Pelosi/Schumer/Biden.

    And, how you fare in holding the "pink" states/districts and flipping the light blue states/districts means whether you have "cushion" in the House/Senate or are at the whims of a Manchin or McCain or Romney.

    In the purple, light blue and pink contests, Trump LOST bigly.

    Those are the contests that mean WINNING or LOSING.
    I don't know how this concept could be made any more clear.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Ok, got it. Orange man bad. Who is the general that can clean this up and put the country on the right track? The true conservative that can win over the moderates while not forsaking the conservative values? Who is it?
    Well not generically. But specifically in this case, yeah. Trump screwed the pooch. It is the character flaws that everyone else can see but you guys that caused him to screw the pooch.

    Why did he pick Walker? Hmmm? Why Oz. Hmmm? Those are the two big ones. GA shouldn't be this easy to lose. Just pick someone who wasn't put away for mental illness, for **** sake! Some general. Jeez.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    So let's sum this up

    When presented with statistics that Trump's record in endorsement outcomes is actually quite good, you seek to move the goalposts to refer to 'competitive' elections, without an information for how that designation was assigned or by who
    ********. You guys are hiding behind the statistic that matters. Trump pick some lousy candidates when it mattered. No one moved any goal posts. The original complaint that losing the Senate is not "winning".

    When asked to name a politician whose endorsement record was BETTER than the record of the politician you so desperately seek to paint in a derogatory light, you have no answer but some vague dodge and weave about other politicians not getting involved in primaries. My post on DeSantis' endorsements gives the lie to that
    That's all you got? Better record. You can't address the complaint. Keep hiding man. It's your only hope.

    It is a valid counterpoint to the argument that Trump has an overall good endorsement record to say that he picked poorly in the races that actually mattered. He's not gonna win the races in blue districs, obviously. He's not gonna lose the races in the red districtshe races that are important are the ones that win the House and Senate. The two most important picks were PA and GA. And he picked two clowns. That's a good counterpoint, but hey. Record matters at least a little. It's a good consolation prize is that OSU finished the season with only one loss, even if they didn't win the important one. Eh?

    It also seems that you think we should '... trust the primaries to generally produce the best candidate ...' as if Trump alone was seeking to influence the primaries but ignoring all the others active in those areas like McConnel and his superPAC the NRSC or Competent Man's leash-holder the Club for Growth

    You might want to pull that axe off the grinder while there is still some metal left in the head

    Primaries won't generally produce the best candidate. I'm not a fan of primaries. But since that's the system we have, it's a good strategy to back solid candidates who believe in the right causes. And back them as hard as you can. So Trump picks two losers in the two most important races. And then throws Walker under the bus. WTF is wrong with him?
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    So there is no need for leaders? There is no need for understanding the structure of the issue? Just send in a leaderless team and drain the swamp…
    Well. A good leader whose character flaws don't cause him to make the worst decisions when it matters. You guys either deny the flaws or say they don't matter. Well, they did here. If Trump were not such a narcissist, and maybe a better strategist, I think he'd have picked candidates that could win. It was always silly to think celebrity matters. A practically brain-dead guy beat the celebrity.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,626
    113
    central indiana
    Maybe you haven't kept up. I dunno. So I'll assume that's the case since you're attributing a position that no one in this discussion has held.

    This whole back and forth about Trump's endorsements was because many Ardent Trump fans bragged in the primaries when Trump endorsed candidates won. You'd (rhetorically 'you') link an article or whatever and comment, 'winning'. Okay.

    Well. Fair enough. Trump endorsees did well in the primaries. Even in districts with a lot of moderates. And it's noteworthy, with the help of Democrats, because it was their strategy to help candidates that could be tied to Trump win in primaries so they could make the election about Trump.

    So all the success in the primaries for Trumpers, now let's see what good it did after the general election is done. It's fair to point out that we should expect Trump candidates to win the easy races. There's no controversy there. It's expected. And then when that point is raised, *some* Trump fans had to parse the word "expected". I guess because that's not an easy enough concept to grasp on its own.

    The whole point has been that fat lot of good Trump-endorsed candidates have accomplished towards the goal of taking over congress. I don't see Trumpers linking to the results and saying "winning". I see them linking to stories about cheating because candidates they were so sure would must have lost because of cheating. Couldn't possibly be that a Trump-picked candidate could lose on their own because at the minimum. They're **** candidates.

    And that's always been the main point in this discussion raised by the people who have an ability to see faults that you guys can't see, because your devotion to a mere mortal blinds you to reality. We lost a seat in the Senate because Trump picked some losers. That's not "winning". And I'm not saying that Trump's endorsement caused them to lose. I certainly can't find any evidence to support that he helped them make it close. The problem is that the guy you think is "winning" picked some losers.

    So there isn't any need to go dozens of pages to figure that out. It is what it is. Just admit it and move on. Trump picked some losers and that cost us the Senate, and possibly a bigger majority in the House. Those were contested races. But winnable. Because of the economy and people being fed up with woke ********.
    Red = Some here have said exactly that. Maybe not you, but some.
    My point is simpler. If Trump gets the credit for the losses, he must get credit for the wins. It is flatly disingenuous to give blame one-way, and withhold credit the other-way. Ballotpedia places his W-L record (so to speak) at 83% in the general election. That, 83%, cannot be called losing. One can hate the particular losses. One cannot, mathematically, declare 83% a losing record.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Some here,

    "________ Donny! I'm tired of his petty ___________ and LOSING!"
    "Temper tantrum Donny HAND PICKED LOSERS!"

    But there's no such thing as TDS. Whew! Um, ok.
    Some only offer righteous anger with personal, ad hominem attacks all while denying factual outcomes. There's no room for any discussion here. There is simply too much rage and ignorance by some.
    What? Who is saying there's no such thing as TDS. But, you guys throw around "TDS" like Wokies throw around "racist". You dismiss legitimate complaints by throwing out useless words. If everyone who disagrees with you about Trump has TDS, then the term is completely worthless. Maybe throw it at people who have TDS. And how is your post not an ad hominem?
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,161
    113
    North Central
    Well. A good leader whose character flaws don't cause him to make the worst decisions when it matters. You guys either deny the flaws or say they don't matter. Well, they did here. If Trump were not such a narcissist, and maybe a better strategist, I think he'd have picked candidates that could win. It was always silly to think celebrity matters. A practically brain-dead guy beat the celebrity.
    Your point presupposes that there was fruit to pick that was not rotten. That there was a candidate that could win.

    Interestingly enough dem voters have no resistance to electing a candidate that is what we all would agree is unquestionably unqualified but conservatives do. But you have to run what you can recruit or the other options are RINO or dem…
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,626
    113
    central indiana
    Who is saying there's no such thing as TDS
    The same person using all caps with exclamation points to declare Donny a loser. If loss of emotional control while discussing Trump's winning record of endorsements leads to name calling (Donny moniker) and screaming (in text context) isn't TDS, I can't imagine what is.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,142
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Red = Some here have said exactly that. Maybe not you, but some.
    My point is simpler. If Trump gets the credit for the losses, he must get credit for the wins. It is flatly disingenuous to give blame one-way, and withhold credit the other-way. Ballotpedia places his W-L record (so to speak) at 83% in the general election. That, 83%, cannot be called losing. One can hate the particular losses. One cannot, mathematically, declare 83% a losing record.
    Trump doesn't get credit for the losses. I think blame is more appropriate because he picked losers in important races. And he may have picked losers in some of the uncontested races too, but which facts would be obscured by the R+20 districts they're in. It would only be brought to our attention if they lost.

    But fine. Forget about whether they're idiots or geniuses. I'm willing to grant you that despite his lack of judgement when it counted. But you guys can't even accept that's the case. Point is, we didn't lose the Senate race because of the 83%. We lost it because we had 3 opportunities to win contested Senate races. AZ, PA, and GA. Trump went 0 for 3 there. I think 2-3 would have been hard but doable with sane candidates. 1-3 would have kept status quo. 0-3 and the Senate is controlled by Dems outright. Now they don't even need Manchin's vote. We're kinda ****ed.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom