As I've made clear, I do not support Trump for president in 2024. I have absolutely zero intention of voting for him if he's the candidate. I think that he has absolutely no chance of getting the congressional support to accomplish anything significant, and that I'm tired of old guys.
But, I saw something today that made me wonder.
First, an unintended consequence of the DFL insisting on prosecuting Trump could very well result in Trump attaining martyr status. It is entirely possible that lots of people will see him as a victim and end up voting for him because of that. I'll admit it'd be absolutely hilarious if the DFL actually gave Trump everything he needs to get elected. I can also see people voting for Trump just to flip the bird to the DFL and the swamp. Again, pretty hilarious
Second, I can only imagine the absolute chaos that would result if Trump won the general, and decided that he was looking for revenge. Holy buckets, it would be as entertaining as anything we've seen politically since the 1800's. As a lame duck I can see Trump going scorched earth on those who've gone after him starting on day one. I seriously doubt he'd accomplish anything else, but it'd be amazing to watch, full bore banana republic stuff.
The best part of all of this is that the DFL would have no one but themselves to blame. In the first option, it's their fault they couldn't actually accomplish anything. In the second, well the precedent of using the power of the DOJ against your political rivals has been established as an acceptable practice.
I'm afraid the DFL has given Trump everything he needs in 2024.
16 comments:
an unintended consequence of the DFL insisting on prosecuting Trump could very well result in Trump attaining martyr status.
Among the gullible useful idiot crowd, yes. But that's a problem with the modern MAGOP, not with the process.
You agree, I hope, that only gullible people would believe anything this pervert conman would say, especially with the nonsense "savior complex" lies about him being persecuted for the sake of those poor white conservatives who believe in their gourd and savior?
It is entirely possible that lots of people will see him as a victim and end up voting for him because of that.
But not amongst rational people, can you agree?
Holy buckets, it would be as entertaining as anything we've seen politically since the 1800's.
You would think that a pervert con man winning would be entertaining?
A corrupt pervert and amoral con man going scorched earth would be horrible. What about this is anything but disturbing?
I am guessing the problem is you don't recognize how aberrant and unhinged this is.
Your position, frankly, is as goofy as any I've heard from a modern progressive/Democrat/marxist without actually being a modern progressive/Democrat/marxist. Let's review:
" As I've made clear, I do not support Trump for president in 2024. I have absolutely zero intention of voting for him if he's the candidate."
It's OK to withhold support for Trump's reelection during the primary season. That's what the primaries are for. But to withhold support if he wins the nomination is heinous to the extreme. You might convince yourself that it would be OK because he'll win anyway (I hope this is where your head is at), but the reality is that each of us is to regard our vote as the one which determines the outcome. There's no other adult way to look at it.
Worse than that is the obvious concession to that which has proven itself to be about as egregious an assault on everything America is supposed to represent by allowing the evil Democrat party to win again. I don't give a flying rat's ass what you think of Trump as a person. But to dare suggest we're better off with a Democrat than him should he win the GOP nomination is suicide-level stupidity...and I'm totally sincere in that opinion.
We've already seen the horrible downside from the last time when sanctimonious assholes thought themselves noble in withholding their vote for Trump's re-election in the face of a Biden presidency. Any adult who pays attention knew we were in for bad times were Biden to win. The only thing uncertain was just how raw our asses would be. There's time enough for full out bleeding before the next election, and you actually believe you're doing your nation and your God a solid by withholding your support should he win the nomination???? Why would you do that again to your wife and kids?
"I think that he has absolutely no chance of getting the congressional support to accomplish anything significant..."
Does not your congressional reps in the House and Senate answer to you? Are they not supposed to? Get on the phone, flood them with emails and letters and nag your like-minded friends and family to demand congress get their sorry asses behind the president the people elected!!! WTF is wrong with you????
I'm not suggesting congress not debate issues and get to real solutions or real methods of enacting solutions. But if they withhold their support simply because the president's name is "Trump"...and you'll sit on your ass and say nothing about it, then you're deserving of all the harm which you're petulance invites upon us all.
"I'm tired of old guys."
Boo-f**king-hoo!
"First, an unintended consequence of the DFL insisting on prosecuting Trump could very well result in Trump attaining martyr status."
That's already a done deal.
"It is entirely possible that lots of people will see him as a victim and end up voting for him because of that."
That, too, is a done deal, but only because it's the reality. Trump is a victim of those who held your opinion the last time around. Those who rejected him after he improved the state of the nation following the incompetent empty suited Obama created the environment where he could be victimized by despotic Dem assholes. There's been several accounts of blacks and other minorities relating to his being victimized by "the man" and as a result choosing to support him. I'd much more prefer people vote for him based on his great record as president...made greater as a result of his successes despite his inexperience in politics and the vast obstruction against him...but given so many ignore that, I'll take any reason should he be the nominee.
I have no problem with Trump looking to penalize the bastards who caused so much misery for him, because as he says so rightly, it's not him their arrayed against, but us. However, I also believe he'd still be working to MAGA while returning fire upon those who deserve retribution for their evil. I want anyone from our party to promote such action whomever it is who wins the nomination and then the general. It's no less justified if it's Trump doing it, but your attitude plays right into the hands of those righteously punished who will whine.
Note to those like you: I often send emails and such to my reps. If I thought Trump was spending too much time on revenge against those who would justifiably suffer from it, I would be all over my reps like stink on shit to pressure Trump to focus on what matters, though I doubt he'd lose that focus while making assholes pay.
Trump is one of three who compels my support. Coins having only two sides, it will be hard to determine should in my mind one doesn't separate himself from the other two. As such, please don't go on about me being an OnlyTrumper. That would be false.
"Among the gullible useful idiot crowd, yes. But that's a problem with the modern MAGOP, not with the process."
Who this influences is irrelevant. If Trump as a martyr swings enough people regardless of how you personally choose to characterize them, then he wins. Making snarly comments and disparaging people doesn't change that potential outcome.
"You agree, I hope, that only gullible people would believe anything this pervert conman would say, especially with the nonsense "savior complex" lies about him being persecuted for the sake of those poor white conservatives who believe in their gourd and savior?"
No. I generally don't think that these kinds of sweeping, disparaging generalizations are accurate or helpful. It seems pointless and useless to engage in this sort of generalization based on one's personal opinions.
"But not amongst rational people, can you agree?"
I have absolutely no idea who this might sway, no idea what constitutes "rational" to you personally, and no reason to think that your hunches about "rational" are universal. So, I have no idea.
"You would think that a pervert con man winning would be entertaining?"
No, I think that the chaos and the absurdity of two old, white, rich, dudes with significant negatives going at it would be entertaining. I DO actually think that the aftermath of this potential chaos could be a positive thing. I can see people realizing that things have gone too far and backing off to some degree.
"A corrupt pervert and amoral con man going scorched earth would be horrible. What about this is anything but disturbing?"
Watching folx like you with perpetually wadded panties, trying to put lipstick on the pig that is Joe Biden would be incredibly entertaining.
"I am guessing the problem is you don't recognize how aberrant and unhinged this is."
No, the problem is how unhinged and aberrant (abhorrent?) the whole process is. The fact that the entire APL is encouraging the party in power to unleash the power of the DOJ against a major political opponent in the middle of an election cycle is unhinged. The possibility that this tactic just might backfire and result in Trump being more popular and actually winning, while the APL is blind to their part in that potential outcome is pathetic.
Art,
I apologize for not responding to your comments in the other thread. You know how Dan gets when he feels like he's being ignored, so I hope you understand why I spend my limited time dealing with his comments.
As to your first comment, your notion that anyone who doesn't agree with your blind support of the GOP nominee regardless of the flaws of that person being "heinous", is contemptible. You've been on this bandwagon for years, and it still doesn't make sense. Both you and Dan seem to think that engaging in this sort of name calling, ad hom, attacks against people is somehow an effective means of persuasion is simply absurd.
"Does not your congressional reps in the House and Senate answer to you?"
No.
"Are they not supposed to?"
No.
"Get on the phone, flood them with emails and letters and nag your like-minded friends and family to demand congress get their sorry asses behind the president the people elected!!! WTF is wrong with you????"
Nothing. I realize that even if Trump wins, that it's highly likely that the DFL will control one house of congress for the first 2 years, and potentially for all 4. I also realize that the margins of control are likely to be small, which means that Trump as president would have to actually do things to attract the votes of (at least a few) DFL senators/reps in order to accomplish anything. Given that you think that one of Trump's strengths is his unwillingness to compromise on anything, cooperation across the aisle seems unlikely.
Art,
I'll say this to you, much like I've said it to Dan. When you tell me what you "will" do in some hypothetical situation in the future, I simply assume that it's bullshit.
Look, I'm all in to see Trump on a revenge tour. I think it'll be petty, appalling, cringe worthy, disturbing, amusing, and ultimately a catalyst for some overdue changes in our political climate.
One of the points in this is that the DFL bears a huge degree of responsibility for Trumps popularity. As far back as 2016, the DFL has been vilifying Trump. They apparently aren't smart enough that there are plenty of people who gravitate towards the things people tell them they shouldn't do.
In this case, the decision to prosecute Trump in the middle of a presidential campaign is only going to strengthen his base and likely push people toward him. Regardless of the merit of any of the charges, anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the timing of the indictments is a political decision is simply blind. There is nothing about any of these charges or the statute of limitations that wouldn't have allowed the regime to wait until after the 20204 elections. Hell, if Trump had won the 2024 elections, they probably could have saved time and money by not wasting their time.
In any case, this whole thing is potentially going to end up in a massive goat rope and is likely to make everyone look bad.
I'll say this right now, as DeSantis poll numbers are reportedly rising. If Trump is not the GOP nominee, you better follow your own advice and 100% support the nominee. Avoiding any talk of Trump being screwed out of the nomination would also be a smart choice.
I really hope we get a good GOP candidate who will be able to serve TWO terms, which Trump cannot.
The only Trump will get my vote is if it comes to him or any Demokrat.
I've been nothing if not absolutely clear on my willingness and intent to support the eventual GOP nominee for president. How can you possibly question me on that point? I've also stated more directly, that I would be just as happy to vote for DeSamtis or Ramaswamy should either supplant Trump. I say it like that not only because Trump's so far ahead at this point , but moreso because despite all I have said so clearly and directly, you nonetheless choose to regard as an "Trump Or No One" kinda guy, which is ludicrous and wholly without basis. Unlike either of you two, I'm absolutely, coldly and unemotional objective as I gather info and data toward my eventual vote.
More later.
OK, some of this might appear repetitive, given the lag time of submitting a comment here until we see it posted. (Not a complaint, per se,given I understand why it is so.) Nonetheless:
"I apologize for not responding to your comments in the other thread."
No need whatsoever.
"As to your first comment, your notion that anyone who doesn't agree with your blind support of the GOP nominee regardless of the flaws of that person being "heinous", is contemptible."
You're being unnecessarily defensive. My support is in no way blind. That's a baseless claim given the many words I've typed explaining my support...all of it easy to affirm as true and thus justified. When running against Hillary, my support was also not bling despite Trump having no political track record apart from his financial and social support for Dems like the Clintons. He had only his campaign promises against Hillary's years of political history, which is about as "blind" as my support for any candidate ever could've been.
Yet I did then what I insist we must all do now, and with greater need to do it. That is, I voted for the victor of the GOP primary, the GOP nominee, in spite of his flaws, which were far more foremost in my mind at that time. The worst of these are no longer a factor.
So again, should Trump not be the guy, I will support whomever is. As I don't believe there's any possibility the worst of the bunch...like Chris Christie...has any chance of being that guy, none who have any chance aside from Trump at this point, scares me in any way that I couldn't support that primary winner over any of the many jackasses the Dems will surely put in place for their side. This isn't even a question. It's a certainty. Given my confidence in who won't be the nominee, there's no way I won't vote for who will be. I can't believe you would think I would do otherwise. Again, to withhold one's vote for Trump...and I continually refer to him in this context due to the "grave" concerns about his, at this point, likely victory...simply on the basis of what is a truly small list of criticisms padded with tons of insignificant crap, is indeed heinous given the stark evidence of how that worked out for the nation last time.
I also insist that between the two of us, your rejection of Trump is far more Dan-like than anything I've said thus far. However, if there's any similarity between he and I, it's totally mitigated by the fact I support someone who has done well on behalf of my nation, while Dan supports evil.
""Does not your congressional reps in the House and Senate answer to you?"
No.
"Are they not supposed to?"
No."
Both "no's" are incorrect and the second one is wildly so. If your congressional reps don't answer to you, you need to vote for better. It's their job to answer to those who put them in office, and more generally to those in their districts. So absolutely they're supposed to answer to you. That they don't is far more a case of a great lack of pressure from their constituents. As I continue to say, this "government of the people" isn't meant to be simply showing up on election day and then for the next two years or more doing nothing. It's what we do in between elections which matters most and I can say with extreme confidence that we now have what we allowed to happen.
A rep might see an email from me and think to him/herself, "that' just one email". If I send more, he/she might think, "that's just one constituent". But already it's clear pressure is forming. Now if a second person sends emails, that rep has multiple emails from two people. Add two more, and the rep begins to wonder. Add a dozen more, sending emails, making phone calls, attending "town halls" and everyone of those constituents pushing in the same direction, that rep will damned well bend at the force building and only a fact-based, articulately expressed argument can disabuse that throng from their efforts. That's how our form of government is supposed to work, at least from our side and a shameful few bother. And those same people who don't bother support term limits so they don't have to.
" Given that you think that one of Trump's strengths is his unwillingness to compromise on anything..."
From what dark, smelly orifice are you pulling this rank crap? It's an absolute distortion of what I've said. Trump acts on behalf of the American people and our nation. His strength is not compromising in a manner that results in us not being first. The history of too many GOP presidents has been to "compromise" with Dem assholes who won't fulfill their side of the bargain, or who don't actually give our side anything of real value, which is what a compromise is. There must be something for both sides, and what our side gets must be significant. Trump won't act on any other basis (it's the art of the deal, I'd say) and to look at this as a problem is absurd. Frankly, given the character of the Democrat party, there's very little room to compromise on anything. What they want is what we now have and we need someone who's smart enough to know when "compromising" and "reaching across the aisle" is a fool's errand. A great example was his policy of eliminating two existing regulations before passing one new one. As we know we're inundated with way too many regs, this was a way to compromise intelligently. You want that new reg? Find two you can do without and we'll trade. A win-win which gives America a bigger win than the Dem party.
In the meantime, look at DeSantis and his playing hardball with his political opponents as governor of Florida. That's not exactly "reaching across the aisle"...and Florida Dems hate him because of it. But Florida benefited greatly, such that people still flock to that state. So I don't see DeSantis being more likely to put us in the lurch than would Trump when it comes to dealing with the other side. Again, no responsible GOP president ever should.
As to those Dems in Congress, all three of mine were Dems when I still lived in the People's Republic of Hellinois. Durbin, Duckworth and Krishnmoorthi. I was constantly on their asses. How many other conservatives were I have no idea. My guess is not many, and thus they did what Dems do. Yet they'll succumb to pressure as well. They'd have no choice if a loud voice rose up against them.
Finally, if events suggest Trump was screwed out of the nomination, one would be remiss to shrug it off. Indeed, that would be heinous. It would only embolden future such criminality. It's how we got here. We have to insist with extreme prejudice that it stop.
I was going to address Dan's comments, but stating the obvious isn't really necessary. His is nothing more than his irrational, lie-filled hatred of a man far better than he.
Glenn,
I agree. I believe that several of the current crop of candidates could take exactly the same actions Trump would take, and be successful doing so. I also believe that "fixing" things will take more than one term.
If, somehow, Trump wins I can't believe that he would work with the GOP to implement some sort of succession plan. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to run for a third term. If Trump wins, I suspect we'll see one term of some successes, and plenty of failures, followed by a DFL president who'll roll it all back.
Not a hopeful scenario.
"How can you possibly question me on that point?"
Because I read what you write.
" If your congressional reps don't answer to you, you need to vote for better."
I do. Unfortunately, I don't control the rest of the voters in my district/state and therefore have to live in the real world where my reps aren't going to listen to me.
FYI, if you are correct about reps having to "listen to" and simply act as the loudest voices of their constituency demand they act, you essentially have a democracy based on who yells the loudest.
Art,
NO offense, but you haven't offered any new Trump talking points in a really long time. I don't disagree with many of them. The problem is that you haven't given me any reason to reconsider how I weigh Trump's negatives, his electability, or his inability to serve two terms. The difference is that I respect your right to reach a different conclusion without feeling the need to cast aspersions.
"Because I read what you write. "
Really? You're saying I've written that I won't vote for anyone but Trump? I've never even said that regarding the primaries!! I haven't made my choice yet. So what have you read that makes you think I wouldn't vote for the eventual nominee?
"FYI, if you are correct about reps having to "listen to" and simply act as the loudest voices of their constituency demand they act, you essentially have a democracy based on who yells the loudest. "
Nonsense. What we'd have in truth...not "essentially"...is an actual representative republic, where our representatives...you know...represent us. And yes, that means acting on behalf of the loudest voices which, hopefully, are always shouting for the most necessary things most beneficial for the most people.
What form of government are you trying to have?
"NO offense, but you haven't offered any new Trump talking points in a really long time."
I don't need to. His positives are well known, despite being so unjustly regarded as less plentiful and significant than the few negatives you continue to cite.
"The problem is that you haven't given me any reason to reconsider how I weigh Trump's negatives, his electability, or his inability to serve two terms."
Actually, I very much have. You simply reject them. The issue now is the statement that you won't vote for him if he wins the primary. This shows a high disregard for your own loved ones given how his loss in 2020 turned out for us all. This is what I criticize and the consequences are deserving of far worse than "aspersions". As to that, they come from the aspersions you've thrown my way...the notion that I blindly support Trump or that I am some kind of "OnlyTrumper" when I've clearly and often expressed my intention of supporting whomever wins the primary. Indeed, I'm certain I've related many times how I was a Ted Cruz supporter, and when he lost the primary to decide the GOP nominee for the 2016 election, what did I do? I believe I voted for the eventual winner of the primary. Why the hell wouldn't I do that now? Because I think Trump's more important than the welfare of the United States of America? I certainly didn't feel that way about Cruz when Hillary was the threat we faced!!
So yeah...tell me about aspersions when the fate of the nation hangs upon which party wins in '24.
And given Trump did a great job in a single term already, there's no reason one should anguish over the fact he can only do one more term. He's far more likely than not to do a good job again. Personally, I think the best scenario is a Trump/DeSantis ticket, with DeSantis winning in '28 for the first of his two terms. That's three GOP terms in a row, and that's a good thing.
Post a Comment