DeSantis 2024?

[jamil]

Voting is a cost benefit analysis, is it not?

I don't know where you got that Trump was my number one pick. I don't particularly like him as a person, I never have, going back 20-30 years even. But he does have certain qualities I see as important that no other candidate has. One of those is tenacity, he is a pit bull, and once he latches onto something, he isn't letting go. Now with Trump that's a double edged sword for me because I don't agree with him on everything. The vaccine thing is a big problem for me. But with the election issue, absolutely. Now could he more deftly communicate the issue? Absolutely.

With regard to abortion, he's largley responsible for overturning of Roe v Wade. How does that make him squishy in his abortion stance again? Why are we talking about hypotheticals? I'd rather base decisions on history than what ifs.

At the end of the day, not sure who I'd vote for in the primary. Maybe hop over and vote RFK in the dem primary.

You make a good case that Trump is your number one choice, lol.

But anyway I suspect you misunderstood. I’m not saying that Trump is squishy. I’m saying that if he were to soften his stance on abortion he could pull that off without losing any meaningful support.

But you didn’t really answer my question. Number one or not, if Trump softened his stance on abortion would that be a deal breaker?

About his participation in overturning RvW, those were chosen by the federalist society. All Trump did was choose from the list with advisement from Mitch McConnell.

 

[jamil]

Well, no candidate has to campaign on one issue. Trump talks about a lot of stuff at rallies. I think the national propaganda machine wants everyone to think that all he talks about is 2020. Some on this side seem to be buying it.

Sure he talks about other stuff. The context was the article someone posted where they suggested something close to justifying making it about retribution for 2020. I’m saying that’s essentially turning it into another referendum on Trump, which he can’t win.

I understand the importance of how pissed Trumpers were and the extent to which they feel cheated. But making the election about that is not helping Trump. They already support him. He needs to attract a good chunk if people who don’t support him.

If Trumpers need to be worked into a frenzy over 2020 to maintain their enthusiasm for Trump, I just find that odd. I don’t think Trump needs that to keep his base support. Unless I completely misjudged the basis of their support.

 

[jamil]

Nothing not expressly outlined in the constitution IS or SHOULD EVER be a federal issue.

Period, full stop; the ONLY person responsible for kicking that ball back to the States is 45 and his 3 SCOTUS appointments

How about the people who created the list of justices and advised him who to pick from it? Do they get any of that credit?

 

[nonobaddog]

About his participation in overturning RvW, those were chosen by the federalist society. All Trump did was choose from the list with advisement from Mitch McConnell.

Are you serious?
He doesn't get credit because - he had help and he had advice - Oh Waaaa!

If you want to stand on that kind of logic you better go back and reevaluate all the credit ever given to any leaders anywhere for anything.

 

[jamil]

Where did I say make it the primary issue?

That was the context of my part of the discussion based on the article I commented on.

I don't think independents are as unpersuadable on this as you think they are. The evidence is there, we don't even have to lie about it. We cant let the other side frame the issue and debate, and many have allowed them to do it.

Again, my complaint was making the campaign about retribution for 2020. I’m not suggesting anyone should lie. You can choose what you want to talk about. Whining that the election was stolen resonates with people who believe it was. It doesn’t resonate in a favorable way with those who think Trump tried to steal the election when he tried the elector slate stunt.

It doesn't help that Trump is such a megalomanic, as that feeds the perception that the issue is about him. But if Goebbles and the left could do it with lies, wouldn't it be easier to do it with reality, as long as the right is tenacious enough.

I think one could make a reasonable case using sources that independents would trust. We know rules were subverted under the cover of covid.

They loosened rules on paper ballots in key states. Extended deadlines that gave them plenty of time to find ballots needed to win. They prevented fair observance. Companies like facebook were allowed to make donations to help elections but really should have been counted as in-kind contributions. They helped pay for Democrat canvassing. There were many anomalies involving improper chain of custody.

I think you can get people to see that. Better stay away from the Kraken though. That’s not convincing anyone. They’ll just think you’re kooky if you bring it up.

 

[Floivanus]

How about the people who created the list of justices and advised him who to pick from it? Do they get any of that credit?

Absolutely, but without a vessel that has the charisma and draw that DJT has, we would’ve been saddled with three liberal picks like Ketanji Jackson.

IMHO that would’ve been disastrous

 

[jamil]

Are you serious?
He doesn't get credit because - he had help and he had advice - Oh Waaaa!

If you want to stand on that kind of logic you better go back and reevaluate all the credit ever given to any leaders anywhere for anything.

What? He gets credit for deciding to go with the ones he was advised to pick. He could have chosen his sister. That’s all any president does is pick from those advisors suggest. I didn’t say he gets zero credit. But you guys act like he gets all the credit. Maybe give some credit to the federalist society. They made the list. And probably Mitch McCo…nevermind. Whatever he contributed in advice, I just can’t.

 

[jamil]

Absolutely, but without a vessel that has the charisma and draw that DJT has, we would’ve been saddled with three liberal picks like Ketanji Jackson.

IMHO that would’ve been disastrous

I agree with that. Except probably the bit about Charisma is overstated.

 

[nonobaddog]

How about the people who created the list of justices and advised him who to pick from it? Do they get any of that credit?

No, not really.
Note I am saying they don't get the credit. Sure, they deserve the credit but that just doesn't seem to be the way it works. At least not in the eyes of the public.
Of course there are a few that would give them the lions share of the credit, like you, but the general public - nah.

 

[jamil]

I think it would take a potus who is a law geek who keeps up with who is who in the courts to be able to pick justices without a lot of advisement. I could see where a POTUS might tell his advisors to make a list of candidates with certain qualities that he can choose from. But Trump pledged to pick from a list of judges from the Heritage list in 2016 to get an endorsement. So he did not really have any input on who’s on the list. But to the earlier point, he deserves credit for being the guy who gets to pick. That’s not nothing.

 

[buckwacker]

You make a good case that Trump is your number one choice, lol.

But anyway I suspect you misunderstood. I’m not saying that Trump is squishy. I’m saying that if he were to soften his stance on abortion he could pull that off without losing any meaningful support.

But you didn’t really answer my question. Number one or not, if Trump softened his stance on abortion would that be a deal breaker?

About his participation in overturning RvW, those were chosen by the federalist society. All Trump did was choose from the list with advisement from Mitch McConnell.

You make a lot of assumptions. I don't really know who I'm going to vote for in the primary. If it's like nearly every other presidential primary, our election is a mere formality anyway. It's done by the time we get to vote.

I don't know why you insist on dealing in hypotheticals. Are there not enough issues to pick from that you need to raise them?

Come on jamil, has bug rubbed off on you, or is this some sort of INGO ying\yang thing? He nominated three justices that were responsible for overturning RvW. What does it matter who recommended them? Just can't give credit?

 

[jamil]

You make a lot of assumptions. I don't really know who I'm going to vote for in the primary. If it's like nearly every other presidential primary, our election is a mere formality anyway. It's done by the time we get to vote.

I don't know why you insist on dealing in hypotheticals. Are there not enough issues to pick from that you need to raise them?

Come on jamil, has bug rubbed off on you, or is this some sort of INGO ying\yang thing? He nominated three justices that were responsible for overturning RvW. What does it matter who recommended them? Just can't give credit?

I thought I did give sufficient credit. Maybe you hadn’t seen those before posting this. And I was joking about you making the case for #1.

 

[buckwacker]

Sure he talks about other stuff. The context was the article someone posted where they suggested something close to justifying making it about retribution for 2020. I’m saying that’s essentially turning it into another referendum on Trump, which he can’t win.

I understand the importance of how pissed Trumpers were and the extent to which they feel cheated. But making the election about that is not helping Trump. They already support him. He needs to attract a good chunk if people who don’t support him.

If Trumpers need to be worked into a frenzy over 2020 to maintain their enthusiasm for Trump, I just find that odd. I don’t think Trump needs that to keep his base support. Unless I completely misjudged the basis of their support.

Well this is INGO, and thread context wanders.

Do me a favor, watch a couple rallies and report back the percentage of time he spends relitigating 2020. You're insinuating it's a significant amount of time. Where do you get that?

I'm not sure if I'm talking past you or you're being obtuse. You seem to think that if an issue doesn't resonate with voters your trying to convince, you drop it and move on to another issue that might. This is the ADD I was talking about. Is winning a single election more important than nudging voters beliefs your way over time. The right seems to think so, the left does so less. This is why I brought up Goebbels. Convincing people takes time and its certainly not going to happen flitting from one issue to the next.

 

[buckwacker]

I thought I did give sufficient credit. Maybe you hadn’t seen those before posting this. And I was joking about you making the case for #1.

The comment was in reference to the last paragraph of your comment that I quoted.

If I say trump was instrumental in overturning RvW, and you respond with all he did was pick from a list he was handed, that sounded like minimizing his contribution. I'm grateful he listened to good advice and nominated them.

Sorry didn't come across as a joke, but it's just words on the internet. Kinda hard to decifer intent without tone, inflection, or a grin.

 

[jamil]

The comment was in reference to the last paragraph of your comment that I quoted.

If I say trump was instrumental in overturning RvW, and you respond with all he did was pick from a list he was handed, that sounded like minimizing his contribution. I'm grateful he listened to good advice and nominated them.

Sorry didn't come across as a joke, but it's just words on the internet. Kinda hard to decifer intent without tone, inflection, or a grin.

Well. I don’t have one of those big ass smiley faces like BigRed has.

 

[Floivanus]

I agree with that. Except probably the bit about Charisma is overstated.

Outside of Obama I can’t cite a single politician who draws the crowds Trump does

When RDS routinely draws 30k people let me know

 

[jamil]

Outside of Obama I can’t cite a single politician who draws the crowds Trump does

When RDS routinely draws 30k people let me know

What does RDS have to do with it? I didn’t say Trump doesn’t have Charisma. I disagree that his Charisma, specifically got him the win. He faced the worst candidate in modern times. Just about any candidate should have beaten Hillary.

 

[KG1]

What does RDS have to do with it? I didn’t say Trump doesn’t have Charisma. I disagree that his Charisma, specifically got him the win. He faced the worst candidate in modern times. Just about any candidate should have beaten Hillary.

Thank Hillary for being the worst candidate of modern times otherwise Trump would not have been able to select 3 justices from a list.

 

[KG1]

Tell Trump to quit blaming Christie for recommending Wray. Own it.

 

[jamil]

Thank Hillary for being the worst candidate of modern times otherwise Trump would not have been able to select 3 justices from a list.

That doesn’t have to be in purple.