DeSantis 2024?

[BugI02]

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

Why not admit that DeSantis is sucking Club for Growth teat and his patron talks like he's on a short leash and that patron is holding it? I can truthfully say he is being aggressively positioned to be the next big thing rather than getting there organically, because there is no evidence that that is not true and plenty of evidence that can be interpreted as such. Why are the DeSandinistas unable to admit that he shut down FL just like most other governors and did not stand firm like those seven governors I have already delineated. Immediately we go to, well he started lifting restrictions after a month or however long it was, which has nothing to do with the actual point being made - that his response differed only in degree

If one is (self) vaunted to dispassionately examine all the facts of an issue, why is it so hard to admit DeSantis ****ed up? Physician, heal thyself

 

[KLB]

illegal immigrants were at all times lows,

Can you share some source for this? Everything I find says otherwise.

Here is a chart of apprehensions, which is where they tend to estimate overall numbers. He started off about the same as under Obama, then got worse until Covid. Now of course it is out of control.

 

[BugI02]

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 wasn't perfect? Because there is a little Libertarian puritanism in most conservatives - more in some than in others?

Those looking for a perfect man had better be backing Jesus 2024

 

[jamil]

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

I understood the context. I think I've even said elsewhere to Mike that it doesn't matter. It doesn't. Even if true, and I don't have any evidence that it is true, but even if it were, it doesn't justify the actions. It demonstrates a foolish action. it is a blemish, not a blessing.

There's no amount of makeup that hide that wart. But, also, as I've been saying, having to admit Trump ****ed that one thing up, doesn't mean you have to dump him. Everyone ****s something up. No one is perfect. When compared to others, you might find Trump's positive qualities outweigh the negatives. But using all the mental gymnastics to defend even one obvious wart isn't convincing.

I get some of the reason you guys are doing this. To Mike's point, some people think this substantially damages Trump's pro-gun cred. And it shouldn't. It's reasonably inferred that he was trying to defend gun rights. His strategy is wrongheaded, just like the INGOers who advocate compromise as a way of deterring worse. That's not anti-gun. That's a flawed idea borne from ignorance.

It's harder to defend the constitutional folly. That one sticks. So defense against him being anti-gun doesn't stick. But his disregard for the constitution is problematic. I think to remove that wart, you pretty much have to take the position that it's unimportant.

 

[jamil]

He wasn't perfect? Because there is a little Libertarian puritanism in most conservatives - more in some than in others?

Those looking for a perfect man had better be backing Jesus 2024

Most people have the capacity to understand nuance. It's a multi-variate problem. More than one thing can be true at the same time. A person may think Trump has done many good things, yet can still be disappointing when considering all factors important to the person. If you don't give a flying **** about the unconstitutional executive orders, and you don't give a **** about the president behaving like a petulant child, instead of a rational, justifiably angry adult, you won't score those factors as high enough to make you disappointed.

 

[jamil]

Why not admit that DeSantis is sucking Club for Growth teat and his patron talks like he's on a short leash and that patron is holding it?

Who? WTF are you talking about? Trump took CFG money too. Trump was partnered with them before. And their relationship turned sour. No great loss in my book. CFG is an amalgamation of Republican factions that I can't stand: CoC and Neocons. Was Trump sucking their teat? Or did CFG become CoC Neocons after their relationship soured? If it's a wart for DeSantis to have recieved money from CFG then it's a wart on Trump too, notwithstanding the souring of their relationship.

I can truthfully say he is being aggressively positioned to be the next big thing rather than getting there organically, because there is no evidence that that is not true and plenty of evidence that can be interpreted as such.

I haven't seen the evidence you're talking about, but I don't watch Trunews either, so maybe that's it. But if you have some solid verifiable evidence that DeSantis is the boogeyman you think he is, it seems like this would be the thread to post it in.

Why are the DeSandinistas unable to admit that he shut down FL just like most other governors and did not stand firm like those seven governors I have already delineated.

I don't have a problem admitting it. Indeed FL shut down for a time. Credit to the other governors for not shutting down. They should throw their hats into the ring too. I'd rather have more candidates to choose from than just Trump and DeSantis.

DeSantis shouldn't have locked down. I'm glad he switched the policy.

Immediately we go to, well he started lifting restrictions after a month or however long it was, which has nothing to do with the actual point being made - that his response differed only in degree

If one is (self) vaunted to dispassionately examine all the facts of an issue, why is it so hard to admit DeSantis ****ed up? Physician, heal thyself

I don't think I denied it. I have no problem saying DeSantis was wrong to shut down. I don't need to see the candidates I consider to be without blemish. I don't need makeup to remove the blemishes.

Though I understand why DeSantis shut down FL, just like you understand why Trump did the bump stock order, that understanding of why doesn't absolve either actions. They both are warts, even though we understand why they did it.

One other point though, given that you keep making this point about DeSantis locking FL down. Since we both agree that DeSantis was wrong to shut down FL at all, let along for just a few months, how much more in the wrong was Trump for putting the power of the federal government behind Fauci? I mean, I understand why he did, but we've established that understanding isn't absolution.

Is your point about DeSantis really a bigger point against Trump? If Trump had the balls to give sane governors cover for not locking down, probably more would not have. Nothing would have saved us from Holcomb. But maybe more governors wouldn't have shut down. Kudos to those who had the balls not to without that cover. But more might not have shut down if they had the cover.

 

[KLB]

The question about Desantis for me is whether he is the real deal or he has been pandering in his time as Governor.

There is still time before we will even know who is running for the nomination, and it isn't like we will have a lot of say in who the R nominee is.

 

[jamil]

We argue about Trump vs DeSantis, and I suppose this is the thread to do that. But what also belongs in threads like this is to talk about how either of them can win.

We have TrueTheVote. They have GetOutTheVote. They're winning because of what's behind GetOutTheVote. A virtually unlimited supply of activists willing to go door to door in densely populated areas to push Democrat candidates. And I don't mean just to advocate. I mean PUSH.

TrueTheVote can't win against that. I think mail in ballots are here to stay. I think the only chance to get rid of them is through the courts, and it's obvious that they're uninterested in that. So we have to figure that out.

Maybe one strategy is to identify potential republicans and independents in key areas in swing districts who tend not to vote, and push them into voting. But we'll need way more "activists" than Democrats need. One blue haired progressive nutter can knock on way more urban doors in the same period than a plastic baptist can knock on in the suburbs and rural areas.

 

[jamil]

The question about Desantis for me is whether he is the real deal or he has been pandering in his time as Governor.

There is still time before we will even know who is running for the nomination, and it isn't like we will have a lot of say in who the R nominee is.

That's my biggest question. Did he smell the political air and decide that going against lock-down orders would help propel him into the forefront? Because he was propelled there by his opposition to lockdowns. Also, it's kinda hard to buy his "freedom caucus" cred when he's done some objectively authoritarian things. I mean, people here, even the ardent Trumpers, were cheering when DeSantis used the state's power to slap down Disney.

I'm all for taking that away from Disney. The state should never have made those deals in the first place. But DeSantis had just signed some of those agreements with Disney some time earlier, and then pulled all that back when they didn't play ball with him. Trumpers seem to like that kind of play but I don't. If you're claiming to be a freedom caucus guy, don't sign such agreements in the first place. And don't later use the power of the state to take it away just to punish your political enemies. To me, that's a wart.

Is Desantis really a freedom caucus sort of guy? Trump certainly isn't. But Trump isn't really branding himself as such. DeSantis is.

 

[FNparabellum]

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…

So you think all that is ok even if he helps strip firearm rights from people? The fundamental freedom layed out in the constitution second only to freedom of speech. And thats not his only strike, hes the one who green lit operation warpspeed. Now of course he did some good, that could be said of any president but the single most important stance I care about is the 2nd amendment.

 

[jamil]

So you think all that is ok even if he helps strip firearm rights from people? The fundamental freedom layed out in the constitution second only to freedom of speech. And thats not his only strike, hes the one who green lit operation warpspeed. Now of course he did some good, that could be said of any president but the single most important stance I care about is the 2nd amendment.

Like I've been saying upthread, Trump's bumpstock order isn't exactly evidence of being anti-2A. I think his advisors advised him poorly and he went along with that. I don't think anti-gun is a wart that Trump legitimately has. I wouldn't say he's as pro-gun as many of us are. But I don't have any evidence that anti gun at this point either.

The problem with the bump stock ban is that it is an abuse of his authority. He used power he doesn't have to do it, and it goes unchallenged because the people that should challenge it don't want to lose the potential for that power themselves. That's a wart for sure.

His part in operation warpspeed is also a wart.

As well, him putting the power of the federal government behind lock-downs is a wart.

Arguably not firing Fauci is a wart, but that's a wart most politicians would have too. With the press we have now, that would have been sticky politics to navigate for sure, especially for Trump.

 

[foszoe]

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

This is good advice! I plan to plagiarize this post.

 

[foszoe]

Those looking for a perfect man had better be backing Jesus 2024

Trump or Jesus!

Now there's a bumper sticker!

 

[foszoe]

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…

The best years of my life were under Clinton. I believe I had all those things for 8 years in the 90s!

 

[jamil]

Trump or Jesus!

Now there's a bumper sticker!

 

[jamil]

The best years of my life were under Clinton. I believe I had all those things for 8 years in the 90s!

Except taxes. I remember gritting my teeth as I wrote a $1500+ check for my tax bill because that ********er waged a tax war on the middle class.

 

[foszoe]

Except taxes. I remember gritting my teeth as I wrote a $1500+ check for my tax bill because that ********er waged a tax war on the middle class.

You must have lived a different life than me. Clinton didn't impact my taxes. You probably made a lot more than I did.

 

[BugI02]

Who? WTF are you talking about? Trump took CFG money too. Trump was partnered with them before. And their relationship turned sour.

U.S. presidential election

With regard to the 2016 Republican presidential primary candidates, the Club for Growth was critical of Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump. In August 2015, Club for Growth President David McIntosh said that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz are "the real deal candidates, the gold standard of the race," and that while questions remained, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker showed some pro-growth stances.

In August 2015, the Club for Growth PAC announced it would formally support presidential candidates for the first time, saying the group would bundle donations for Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Bush, and Paul. Club for Growth President David McIntosh said "Five candidates are at the forefront of the Republican presidential field on issues of economic freedom, and the Club for Growth PAC is standing with them to help them stand out from the rest." In October 2015, McIntosh said Cruz and Rubio were "the gold standard" of Republican presidential candidates.

The Club for Growth's Super PAC, Club for Growth Action, was particularly critical of Trump's candidacy, announcing a $1 million Iowa advertising buy against his campaign in September 2015. The Club for Growth Action was the first third-party group to spend significant sums against Donald Trump. The Club for Growth announced a $1.5 million advertising buy in Florida in March 2016. The group's advertisements highlighted Trump's support for liberal policies, such as a single-payer health insurance system and tax increases.

In March 2016, Politico reported that the Club for Growth PAC planned to deny congressional endorsements to any candidates who endorsed Donald Trump's presidential bid before the nomination was actually clinched. The Club's PAC noted that the warning did not apply to those who endorsed Trump after the May 3, 2016, Indiana primary. Also in March 2016, the Club for Growth PAC endorsed Ted Cruz for president. The Club for Growth PAC had never previously endorsed in a presidential race. According to Club for Growth head David McIntosh, "This year is different because there is a vast gulf between the two leading Republican candidates on matters of economic liberty. Their records make clear that Ted Cruz is a consistent conservative who will fight to shrink the federal footprint, while Donald Trump would seek to remake government in his desired image."

S0, CfG refused to endorse him, spent millions against him and tried to blackmail down ballot candidates not to support him - pretty much from the beginning

And your 'careful examination of all the evidence' tells you that THAT equals 'in bed with the CfG', as opposed to CfG being DeSantis' largest donor for his ENTIRE political career up until this day?

Why is it so hard to admit that DeSantis may be a CoCrublican, Neo-con tool benefitting from top notch political consulting and being deliberately positioned as the next big thing by a deep pockets political organization that loathes populism

 

[KLB]

Like I've been saying upthread, Trump's bumpstock order isn't exactly evidence of being anti-2A. I think his advisors advised him poorly and he went along with that. I don't think anti-gun is a wart that Trump legitimately has. I wouldn't say he's as pro-gun as many of us are. But I don't have any evidence that anti gun at this point either.

The problem with the bump stock ban is that it is an abuse of his authority. He used power he doesn't have to do it, and it goes unchallenged because the people that should challenge it don't want to lose the potential for that power themselves. That's a wart for sure.

His part in operation warpspeed is also a wart.

As well, him putting the power of the federal government behind lock-downs is a wart.

Arguably not firing Fauci is a wart, but that's a wart most politicians would have too. With the press we have now, that would have been sticky politics to navigate for sure, especially for Trump.

Are you ignoring his comments about taking guns without due process? It was not acted upon, but it is in my mind even more egregious than the bumpstocks

 

[jamil]

You must have lived a different life than me. Clinton didn't impact my taxes. You probably made a lot more than I did.

I don't know about that. But I do know my tax bill went up.