What Reps do we Primary out next election?

[2in1evtime]

Looks like it will be up to the people of those states to decide if they are worth keeping or not, me if there is a better candidate i would go that route, we just need to get a majority if republicans with the american peoples values in the house and senate to get our country on the right track and steer away from the communistic agenda of the other party

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, I can see people being on board with many of the things he was accomplishing, but he lost most of the people who might have supported him if they didn't have TDS. He was BIGLY responsible for a lot of the TDS. I don't think we need crazy. We need a strong leader who can handle the press better than Trump did. A good chunk of the TDS goes away if Trump were saner. Especially if he could communicate without coming off as an idiot.

So... mean tweets?

 

[jamil]

So... mean tweets?

I don’t think the mean tweets affected Trump’s performance other than that they helped the media’s negative reportage be more credible to people. It’s not great to have the POTUS be incapable of self control, but it didn’t seem to inhibit him from getting some things done that needed done.

We seem to be in a cycle where we get progressively more polarizing leaders. Bush begat 0bama who begat Trump who begat 0biden. The swings are getting wider.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don’t think the mean tweets affected Trump’s performance other than that they helped the media’s negative reportage be more credible to people. It’s not great to have the POTUS be incapable of self control, but it didn’t seem to inhibit him from getting some things done that needed done.

We seem to be in a cycle where we get progressively more polarizing leaders. Bush begat 0bama who begat Trump who begat 0biden. The swings are getting wider.

Well that was kind of my point. Part of the TDS crap was brought on or at least aggravated by the so-called "mean tweets". But as you say, they didn't affect his performance. The media was going to be negative toward him no matter what because he wasn't a democrat. I couldn't care less about his tweets. I'm more results-oriented I guess.

 

[jamil]

No, actually it is quite a bit more than that. You used a standard of information, the testimony of random friends who you presumably approve of politics-wise, as a substitute for the 'looking at all sides of an issue and then deciding' you are always working so hard to sell. If another INGOer had done the same, your derision would have been scathing

What you described isn't weighing all sides of an issue, it sounds more like mutual masturbation/confirmation bias over drinks

What I'm interested in, when you claim the mantle of Lustitia, is seeing what sources you went to to make your determination. There should be several and they should fall on both sides of the JK triangulation point if you are what you claim

BTW, I had only to use the wiki as a précis, and then read the stories in the ADN and the FDN-Miner to get a perspective on the 'scandals'

Where available, I prefer local papers as a source for these sorts of thing

No, I don’t think it is more than that. You seem eager to throw some shade and maybe this is a good as spot as you think you’ll get.

I think my opinion of Palin is pretty spot on. She wasn’t a great governor by any objective measure. But she puts on that folksy manner, thumps a little Bible, and its almost like she’s Tim Tebow. Some of you fall for that and think it substitutes for competence just like people thought Tebow kneeling in the end-zone and wearing his religion on his sleeve was a substitute for talent.

Now. That said, if it’s Palin running for POTUS against Kamala Harris, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two idiots.

Oh. And if you can make the case that Palin is not what I think she is, I’m open to changing my opinion.

 

[jamil]

Well that was kind of my point. Part of the TDS crap was brought on or at least aggravated by the so-called "mean tweets". But as you say, they didn't affect his performance. The media was going to be negative toward him no matter what because he wasn't a democrat. I couldn't care less about his tweets. I'm more results-oriented I guess.

I’d rather the POTUS have better control of himself, but the bottom line is getting the job done. By not being capable of controlling himself he sort of helped make the case against him. In the long run he’s now out if a job and many of his accomplishments are being reverted. Would be nice to have a sane president who could get those things done and handle the press.

 

[bwframe]

The mean tweets conversation comes back to a lot of what "we" let happen to ourselves.

"We" stand back and allow the mouthy among us to help the other side by siding with them when our guy gets a bit outrageous.

It's a part of the reason why we ended up with Joe Biden and Joe Donnelly. We need to remember and learn from this.

"But I voted for them," doesn't matter that much when the majority of your time was spent trashing our guy. You likely ran off many more votes than you did by holding your nose to vote our guy and say you did.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I’d rather the POTUS have better control of himself, but the bottom line is getting the job done. By not being capable of controlling himself he sort of helped make the case against him. In the long run he’s now out if a job and many of his accomplishments are being reverted. Would be nice to have a sane president who could get those things done and handle the press.

Maybe it's a chicken and egg kind of thing, but I suspect that with a less antagonistic press, he would have had a lot more composure. Frankly I'm surprised he was as reserved as he was in his response to the constant attacks from both the press and the democrats in Congress. Remember, they were ready to impeach him before he was even sworn in. That would tend to make one a little defensive, don't ya think? I know it would me. Yet he still managed his accomplishments in spite of having them nipping at his heels the whole time. Let's face it. He could have been as humble as Mother Theresa and cured cancer and they still would have been attacking him.

 

[jamil]

The mean tweets conversation comes back to a lot of what "we" let happen to ourselves.

"We" stand back and allow the mouthy among us to help the other side by siding with them when our guy gets a bit outrageous.

It's a part of the reason why we ended up with Joe Biden and Joe Donnelly. We need to remember and learn from this.

"But I voted for them," doesn't matter that much when the majority of your time was spent trashing our guy. You likely ran off many more votes than you did by holding your nose to vote our guy and say you did.

Oh yeah. circle the wagons. **** what's true. Let our own **** us as long as the team wins.

Nah. I ain't playing that.

 

[jamil]

Maybe it's a chicken and egg kind of thing, but I suspect that with a less antagonistic press, he would have had a lot more composure. Frankly I'm surprised he was as reserved as he was in his response to the constant attacks from both the press and the democrats in Congress. Remember, they were ready to impeach him before he was even sworn in. That would tend to make one a little defensive, don't ya think? I know it would me. Yet he still managed his accomplishments in spite of having them nipping at his heels the whole time. Let's face it. He could have been as humble as Mother Theresa and cured cancer and they still would have been attacking him.

With a less antagonistic press, not only would Kut be disappointed in the election outcome, but Kut might also not have developed TDS in the first place.

 

[BugI02]

But as you say, they didn't affect his performance. The media was going to be negative toward him no matter what because he wasn't a democrat. I couldn't care less about his tweets. I'm more results-oriented I guess.

Not only is that true, but the 'mean tweets' canard is a distraction. The media would have savaged Mother Theresa if she was finding success running as a Republican or had gotten elected

The people acting like someone less Trumpy would have had an easier time are just that - acting

 

[BugI02]

No, I don’t think it is more than that. You seem eager to throw some shade and maybe this is a good as spot as you think you’ll get.

I think my opinion of Palin is pretty spot on. She wasn’t a great governor by any objective measure. But she puts on that folksy manner, thumps a little Bible, and its almost like she’s Tim Tebow. Some of you fall for that and think it substitutes for competence just like people thought Tebow kneeling in the end-zone and wearing his religion on his sleeve was a substitute for talent.

All of that is opinion, you give no evidence that calls into question her competence. A few posts ago you were on about scandals, providing no details on the particulars of those, either - I think because you can't be bothered to research an opinion you've already formed. Real world competence has non-subjective standards. Pay attention to her record as mayor of Wasilla, too.

With the quote referenced, the prosecution rests

 

[BugI02]

Oh. And if you can make the case that Palin is not what I think she is, I’m open to changing my opinion.

List the sources you reviewed in order to form the opinion of what you think she is? If there isn't any more to it than the ruminations of random acquaintances, drop the pretense of how carefully you consider the issues to form your opinions

You have the gall to say someone else's source is 'toilet paper', claim to carefully research all sides to form your opinions and then have nothing to back it up! It doesn't even have to be Palin, back up anything you claim was carefully researched, by you, to encompass all sides of the issue. You should be able to list primary sources at the very least

Fish or cut bait

 

[jamil]

All of that is opinion, you give no evidence that calls into question her competence. A few posts ago you were on about scandals, providing no details on the particulars of those, either - I think because you can't be bothered to research an opinion you've already formed. Real world competence has non-subjective standards. Pay attention to her record as mayor of Wasilla, too.

With the quote referenced, the prosecution rests

On about scandals? I mentioned them because it’s what the couple mentioned, but also because those scandals came out back during the 2008 campaign. And yes. It’s my opinion that she’s a kook. That’s obviously an opinion.

 

[Twangbanger]

I think you're unnecessarily conflating "unprincipled" with "grasps reality". One can be principled, and have a grasp on reality. Sometimes principle becomes unreasonable and that is where such a person has lost a grasp of reality. Unreasonable principles cause people to say and do bat **** crazy things. But, I've already conceded that I'd rather have a bat **** crazy person who happens to do what I want than a completely sane but corrupt person doing everything I don't want.



Again, it's like you're saying that "grasps reality" and sound principles can't live in the same space...

I believe people in general can be both principled, and "grasp" reality*. What I don't believe, is that in Washington, that can be effective for "our" side. And that's a key distinction. This is because I think the reality of Washington is inherently hostile to our principles, and mostly favorable to the "other side." Therefore, I think we need politicians on "our side" who explicitly reject the prevailing reality, have no interest in accepting and operating within it, and are prepared to fight against it even to the detriment of their own career interests.

...It sounds like you're saying that to be effective, one has to be at least a little bat **** crazy. And I don't think that's true at all. Some people just flat out get it, are competent in just about everything they touch, and have the ability to communicate their ideas. I've worked with some, not a lot, of people like that over the years. They're fairly rare...

But we're not talking about people you or I have worked with. I know those people exist. We're talking about Washington, and what can be effective there. I think you're making a "should be" argument, ie, "principled conservative people with a grasp of reality should be able to be effective in Washington, and people will respond to that and be persuaded by that and we "win." I'm making an "is" argument. I'm not sure that's possible anymore.

...We don't need a Sarah Palin. She's got too much tabloid trailer park in her to be competent of much past stringing people along to be certain she's one of them. Trump couldn't get it done either. And I'll say he turned out to be way more effective than I thought. But everything he did is being undone, because he couldn't win in the end.

I think competent, principled people exist and I'd rather we get one of those than an idiot. I don't think the right can move the needle without someone who can articulate a better message than the Democrats.

I would be interested to hear what you think about, say, Paul Ryan. Because he's competent, principled, and can articulate a conservative message...but his work has been undone, substantially moreso than with Trump. I don't agree with his views on some things, and perhaps you don't either, but that's not the issue. The point is, he's someone who played the game the way you say it's supposed to be played. And he's one example of it not working, for conservatives, in Washington. Since we're playing the individual examples game.


* If you wanted to pick nits, this is the semantic error I'm making, if anything, because what I'm really conflating is "grasps reality" and "accepts reality."

 

[jamil]

I believe people in general can be both principled, and "grasp" reality*. What I don't believe, is that in Washington, that can be effective for "our" side. And that's a key distinction. This is because I think the reality of Washington is inherently hostile to our principles, and mostly favorable to the "other side." Therefore, I think we need politicians on "our side" who explicitly reject the prevailing reality, have no interest in accepting and operating within it, and are prepared to fight against it even to the detriment of their own career interests

So it's not reality that you're opposed to, it's the "prevailing reality." I dunno. I'm kinda fond of the real one. I guess I still don't see why the person you think we need has to be bat **** crazy.

But we've kinda gotten so deep into the weeds that I think the conversation needs to be reset back to what my first and principle request was. Why do we primary next? Whoever that is, to be successful, they can't be bat **** crazy and win. In the 9th district, a Republican is not a sure thing. Trey Hollingsworth probably needs to go. And I'd really like to see a sane candidate take that spot.

 

[jamil]

* If you wanted to pick nits, this is the semantic error I'm making, if anything, because what I'm really conflating is "grasps reality" and "accepts reality."

No. You're not. I said I wanted someone sane, who is principled, grasps reality. that's the thing you said you disagreed with. I didn't say I wanted someone who accepts reality. You added that.

 

[bwframe]

Trey Hollingsworth just announced he voted with the communist to form a commission to investigate the January 6 protest at the HOR.

Indiana Congressman Trey Hollingsworth won't seek reelection in 2022

Republican Congressman Trey Hollingsworth, 9th District, who represents central and southern Indiana, won't seek reelection in 2022.

www.heraldtimesonline.com