DeSantis 2024?

[BugI02]

The question I asked had nothing to do with whether or not what you're alleging here is true. I have not addressed its truthfulness. I would need to spend a lot of time figuring out what's true and what's not about it. But I can say, if it is true, I think it would tend to harm DeSantis's future success with America First voters.

Why aren't you interested enough to do that work? Is it a coincidence your lack of interest coincides with arguably a deliberate move by DeSantis to reward his donors by bypassing his own legislature?

The question for me has to do with the fact that you've lumped several of us into this group you call ABT's, or DeSandanistas. I think you are trying to fit everyone who has the capacity to criticize Trump into the same box, [like Trump supporters are lumped under the term Trumpers and assumed to have similar characteristics? Nuance for thee but not for me? so that you can just downplay the facts that tend to put Trump in a negative light in some important areas. [Funny, I thought the 'fact' under discussion was the evidence that DeSantis might be a business as usual politician in MAGA clothing. I can see why you would want to pivot from the specific to the general in order to cloud this issue, though] You've changed the wording as your attempts to do this break down. You've called us neverTrumpers, despite the fact that most of the people you're accusing have voted for Trump twice and are willing to do it again. [SD4L for sure and possibly one are true neverTrumpers who have announced they won't vote for Trump no matter what, so neverTrumpers obviously do exist] So then you move onto ABT. But that's problematic too, isn't it. [That is a move to a term that has broader application to placate the whining about how neverTrump isn't precisely correct. ABTs are those hoping against hope that ANYBODY can defeat Trump in the primaries. They have their favorites but they're not to picky as long as someone makes the hit for them]

Anyone but Trump would also imply an incapacity to vote for him ever, against anyone else, now wouldn't it? [No, it wouldn't. It refers to their hopes and dreams for the upcoming primaries, which they pray will be won by - yeah, you've got it! - anyone but Trump. They - and you - will make a big show of how magnanimous they are by condescending to vote Trump if he's on the general ballot] Even among Republicans, tell me which ABT's would vote for the Fat Ass Pussbag over Trump? [Oversimplifying to further cloud the issue. They could certainly sandbag Trump by voting third party] And back that up with posts that would support that.[Why should I feel obligated to back up your straw man argument here. It isn't the argument I'm making. I doubt I have mentioned Christie in any way beyond that he isn't a true candidate but a paid operative tasked solely to damage Trump where he can] Also, which posters can you support with evidence are as fiercely loyal to DeSantis as you are to Trump? [Is it a matter of degree? Can who even quantify degree of 'fierce loyalty' so that I could compare loyalty scores to indicate if there are others loyal to Trump in the same degree? Could you disclose the criteria for that so we can begin to also score fierce loyalty to DeSantis with the same system? That might be eye-opening] If you're gonna prove group hypocrisy you need to back that up with more than your desire to martinalize the people who have a capacity to ever notice a mistake made by Trump. [I've heard of Martinizing, I think it refers to dry cleaning or something. What is martinalizing?]

Back to your argument here.
You're basically making the claim that ABT's are being hypocritical by not applying the same logic to DeSantis as is applied to Trump. We both know what you're talking about. You've used what I think you might consider my signature complaints about Trump to identify that. You use ABT so that you can claim this "group" is hypocritical. But to have that work logically, you have to demonstrate that their loyalty to DeSantis prevents them from seeing reality as it is, the way Trumpers do. [See: FLDOT donor payoff and move to delay Disney trial until 2025, when he won't even be governor anymore. That's a Gogolak kick the can move. You deny he is a CfG tool because there is no evidence and then when evidence pops up you igniore or downplay it, and deflect to how much worse Trump and Trumpers are. You are the number one resource for proving my point]

I think maybe SD4L may be the only conservative regular poster in this thread that might be as anti-Trump/pro DeSantis as you are to Trump. But, you have a name for a group concocted by your own imagination. As if ABT hordes were all over these threads, as mindlessly defending/promoting any candidate over Trump [they are], to the same degree Trumpers mindlessly defend/promote Trump.[begging the question, it isn't a matter of degree where the levels of pro- or anti- need to match up. You can't even admit that they exist, somehow having voted for Trump in the past is thought to absolve their current actions - are you selling dispensations, now]

Okay so all that group ABT nonsense aside, now to address a glaring truth about your point. You've tacitly admitted that the logic is correct to apply to Trump. By using the same logic in all those points against DeSantis it stands to reason that it does work for Trump, unless you want to recant all that. [When you actually do apply the same logic to DeSantis' deficiencies, we'll talk. A few grading, minimized admissions of defect is not the same as being coldly and even-handedly logical]

Okay. So now, where's the hypocrisy you so desperately want to apply to anyone capable of criticizing Trump? I'm skeptical that your claims in your post are true, but not because of any loyalty to DeSantis. It's because I haven't investigated it myself and I'm not going to take the word of someone who has a strong bias against DeSantis, because of his fierce loyalty to Trump. [Again, why the lack of interest in [not]your guy's warts? And do you take the time to research everything bad you want to believe about Trump? Shouldn't the asymmetric split of labor devoted to the two sides give you pause? Why do you so favor one over the other if you are not biased?]

Well, that was a lot of work. You won't get that again often, but you sometimes suffer from that same conceit of 'I brought up twenty arguments in my last post and you didn't answer them all promptly' so I thought I'd have a go at it

Too much work, too little reward [to be abbreviated TMW:TLR henceforth]. I think I'll go back to just criticizing your most egregious lapses of the standards you claim to uphold

 

[BugI02]

My governor spends more money than your governor has never been an argument Republicans would want to make. I don’t think that’s the gotcha moment Bug was hoping for.

As I said, a bit of refutation of the attempt to portray what should come under DeSantis' normal duties as governor as some special infrastructure plan and which itself is a deflection from DeSantis' transparent crony payoff buried in such a plan.

Can a bridge to nowhere be far behind?

 

[BugI02]

DeWine and DeSantis are not running against each other for Govenor. DeWine is not running as a candidate in the 2024 presidential election either to make a comparison.

I brought this up in a 2A issues discussion between Trump and DeSantis in this thread. Bug tried to compare DeWine to DeSantis when he said that DeWine signed into law constitutional carry before DeSantis did. So the hell what.

At that time, I said that comparing the two is not relevant because DeWine is not running for POTUS. It certainly isn't germane to this discussion either for that very same reason.

I disagree. If you wish to point to DeSantis record as marking him as a candidate above others, the fact that his record isn't unusual or particularly better or more successful than a midwestern governor who isn't running for anything (and thus has no incentive to grandstand) is absolutely germane and dispositive

 

[jamil]

Nope, not kidding. The $4 billion was being held up as some sort of unprecedented program attributable only to the greatness of Ron Desantis

I was pointing out it was no such thing, and sycophantic devotion to [not]your guy is probably no worse than any slant WaPo put on the story because the underlying facts look bad

Well, the facts are what they are, but why should I take your word for what the facts are when you've demonstrated a high motivated to interpret things in the most favorable way for Trump, regardless of how rational it is?

And for pointing that out, the accusation was made that if one wasn't for the best interpretation of DeSantis' actions then one was backing the WaPo view. The exchange had all the delusional 'if you're not for us, you're agin' us' binary that's always attributed to those darn Trumpers, as well as reflexive defense of DeSantis from any criticism - textbook lesson in everything Trump supporters are supposedly the only ones guilty of

At least you are now admitting that 1) the "if you're not for us you're against us" is delusional, and 2) that reflexive defenses of your guy against any criticism is not valid. It's been a hard fought battle to get you to see this. And it took your perception of SD4L doing the same thing to get you to see it. Doesn't matter though how it got done. It got done.

And the icing on the cake? The self-appointed avatar of careful, even-handed analysis of politics can't even see it in his own [not]team

Okay. Now this is not so coy, but obviously you're making it about me. And that's delusional. So, do as I said above and bring forth your evidence. I think it's one of two things; yes, a binary of circumstance because no other options fit. Either you're just trolling me because it pisses you off whenever I articulate Trump reasonable criticisms which you've got nothing else logical to say, so you try to package it in a way you can claim hypocrisy. Option two, is that you actually believe it. I strongly suspect it's the former. Because I don't think you're delusional. I think you really like Trump and you reflexively attack people who are critical of whom you are fiercely devoted and loyal.

Maybe you think I should be. But I'm not wired like that. I am only fiercely devoted and loyal to my family. Politicians, those people who seek political power to wield, in my view, are the least deserving of fierce devotion and loyalty. And I have been very consistent in that view. You've only made accusations otherwise. You've made no case for it other than that I dared to criticize Trump on a specific issues, or I dared to praise DeSantis on specific issues. You don't bother to mention the other part of it. I also have praised Trump on some issues, while denouncing DeSantis on others. I think that shows that I have a rational outlook of what reality is. No one is perfect. People deserve criticism where they fall short. People deserve praise for exceeding expectations.

 

[jamil]

As I said, a bit of refutation of the attempt to portray what should come under DeSantis' normal duties as governor as some special infrastructure plan and which itself is a deflection from DeSantis' transparent crony payoff buried in such a plan.

Can a bridge to nowhere be far behind?

This sounds more like your interpretation of the facts. I'd like some links to actual facts. I can find it myself but would save time if you have something handy. I'd prefer sources that don't have strong reasons to present only damning facts or only praising facts. I want both together if you have something.

 

[jamil]

I disagree. If you wish to point to DeSantis record as marking him as a candidate above others, the fact that his record isn't unusual or particularly better or more successful than a midwestern governor who isn't running for anything (and thus has no incentive to grandstand) is absolutely germane and dispositive

I suspect though that being a fiercely loyal Trumper and fierce critic of DeSantis, that you might be less willing to ingest facts which might tend to disprove that DeSantis is literally Satan.

 

[BugI02]

Well, the facts are what they are, but why should I take your word for what the facts are when you've demonstrated a [you are] high[ly] motivated to interpret things in the most [UN]favorable way for Trump, regardless of how rational it is?

Right back at you

 

[BugI02]

Okay. Now this is not so coy, but obviously you're making it about me. And that's delusional. So, do as I said above and bring forth your evidence. I think it's one of two things; yes, a binary of circumstance because no other options fit. Either you're just trolling me because it pisses you off whenever I articulate Trump reasonable criticisms which you've got nothing else logical to say, so you try to package it in a way you can claim hypocrisy. Option two, is that you actually believe it. I strongly suspect it's the former. Because I don't think you're delusional. I think you really like Trump and you reflexively attack people who are critical of whom you are fiercely devoted and loyal.

Maybe you think I should be. But I'm not wired like that. I am only fiercely devoted and loyal to my family. Politicians, those people who seek political power to wield, in my view, are the least deserving of fierce devotion and loyalty. And I have been very consistent in that view. You've only made accusations otherwise. You've made no case for it other than that I dared to criticize Trump on a specific issues, or I dared to praise DeSantis on specific issues. You don't bother to mention the other part of it. I also have praised Trump on some issues, while denouncing DeSantis on others. I think that shows that I have a rational outlook of what reality is. No one is perfect. People deserve criticism where they fall short. People deserve praise for exceeding expectations.

"Blah blah blah, I'm (jamil) reasonable and unbiased because I say I am and you're not because you don't approach things the way I do. Any apparent hypocrisy actually isn't because; reasons"

 

[BugI02]

This sounds more like your interpretation of the facts. I'd like some links to actual facts. I can find it myself but would save time if you have something handy. I'd prefer sources that don't have strong reasons to present only damning facts or only praising facts. I want both together if you have something.

Do your own work

Present your facts in refutation (if they exist) and I'll sit back and wait to criticize your presentation, no matter what it is

It's the jamil way

 

[BugI02]

I suspect though that being a fiercely loyal Trumper and fierce critic of DeSantis, that you might be less willing to ingest facts which might tend to disprove that DeSantis is literally Satan.

As I suspect that being a [covert] fiercely loyal DeSandinista and a fierce critic of Trump you might be less willing to ingest facts which might tend to prove that DeSantis is just an ordinary sort of politician and Trump is not nor is Trump literally Lucifer

 

[KG1]

I disagree. If you wish to point to DeSantis record as marking him as a candidate above others, the fact that his record isn't unusual or particularly better or more successful than a midwestern governor who isn't running for anything (and thus has no incentive to grandstand) is absolutely germane and dispositive

I'm not trying to discount DeWine's record. I'm sure he's done a fine job I'm just saying that his record might carry more weight in the discussion if he were running for POTUS. I would then make the comparison and give DeWine some serious consideration if he were. As it stands now it doesn't matter what he's done because he's not a candidate for POTUS. That's what I meant by not germane.

 

[BugI02]

He's running on his record as governor, the record of any other current governor who is contemporary with DeSantis is valid for comparison whether they are running for president or not

 

[jamil]

As I suspect that being a [covert] fiercely loyal DeSandinista and a fierce critic of Trump you might be less willing to ingest facts which might tend to prove that DeSantis is just an ordinary sort of politician and Trump is not nor is Trump literally Lucifer

That he’s an ordinary politician is neither proven nor disproven unless you already had the outcome in mind.

But really you have proven yourself disingenuous yet again with your insistence, without any evidence, that I have any loyalty to any politician. But you’re not stupid, and I don’t think you’re that delusional. Best explanation is it coms from contempt for people who have any capacity to say a cross word about the object of your fierce loyalty.

 

[KG1]

He's running on his record as governor, the record of any other current governor who is contemporary with DeSantis is valid for comparison whether they are running for president or not

Once again, I would say it would be valid to compare records if they were both running against each other for president or anything else. It appears that you want to make this a race between the two of them as if they were running as candidates for the same office which they are not.

 

[Ingomike]

Once again, I would say it would be valid to compare records if they were both running against each other president or not. It appears that you want to make this a race between the two of them which it is not.

Seems like we are just going to have to disagree on this.

If a guy at work is trying to get a promotion and he claims to be highly successful in his current position it seems logical to compare his performance in his current position to others in the same position to me…

 

[KG1]

If a guy at work is trying to get a promotion and he claims to be highly successful in his current position it seems logical to compare his performance in his current position to others in the same position to me…

It would be a different story if that guy trying to get a promotion were lying about being highly successful and that other guy was vying for the same position.

 

[Ingomike]

It would be a different story if that guy trying to get a promotion were lying about being highly successful.

Do not see how, the claims must be vetted. HR would just take his word for it?

 

[KG1]

Do not see how, the claims must be vetted. HR would just take his word for it?

Sure they must be vetted. No one is taking DeSantis's word for anything. His claim once vetted of being highly successful has nothing to do with someone else who isn't even vying for the same position.

 

[KLB]

Do not see how, the claims must be vetted. HR would just take his word for it?

HR has little to nothing to do with promotions.

If you are talking about applying for a better/higher position, the management for the new position would interview the applicants. Of course they would verify anything they were told in those interviews if they needed to, but they would not compare that employee to others that were not applying for the position.

 

[KG1]

HR has little to nothing to do with promotions.

If you are talking about applying for a better/higher position, the management for the new position would interview the applicants. Of course they would verify anything they were told in those interviews if they needed to, but they would not compare that employee to others that were not applying for the position.

This all gets back to my point comparing DeWine to DeSantis which is how is it germane to compare the record of success between those that are not even vying for the same position?

Sure, you may have been successful, but you weren't as successful as this other guy is not a valid comparison unless they are competing against each other.