Trump: "The biggest fan of Dr Fauci was Ron DeSantis."
Trump Trainers: What do you mean that Trump has problems telling the Truth?
Obviously a trump win would be more palatable than Biden 2.0, but it's bizarre that Trump can't manage to stop himself from saying stupid things.
31 comments:
Yes. "Bizarre" is appropriate on the face of it. But I wonder how often he does such things with some specific intention. Not saying I know what that could be or if the intention is sound. I'm only sayin'.
By the way: What's a "Trump Trainer"?
Someone who's got a lifetime pass for the Trump Train.
What's interesting to me about this is that it reinforces my contention that Trump is very casual with the Truth. He'll say things that he believes make him look good without much regard to whether or not those things are True. But what I think will be even more interesting is how swing voters respond to this "I didn't do anything wrong./It's always someone else's fault." schtick.
Personally I think that if Trump is not willing to own his failures from the first term, as well as provide detailed plans of what he'd do differently this time, that he's not going to get buy in from any but the Trainers. I see it in the same light as his earlier (stupid) comment about not asking God for forgiveness because he didn't need it (or something similar). As long as he refuses to exhibit some degree of humility regarding his record, he just sends the message that he's not connected to reality. I know that his confidence is attractive, but when that confidence leads to rewriting history, that seems a bit too far.
Trump is a narcissist who should not be running. He can only get one term IF he wins, which I doubt. He's preventing others from running because as long as he's there other qualified people won't bother, knowing that Trump will be selected by the mob.
I can't shake the feeling that you'd alter your decision to not vote for Trump if he wins the GOP nomination if he did everything you're asking him to do. Is this accurate?
In the meantime, you continue to suggest that what amounts to throw-away lines are indications that he's the liar Dan and the Washington Post pretend he is. If he says something goofy like RDS is Fauci's biggest supporter, I don't regard that as anything I should take an actual fact, because I actually pay attention.
I also think it's pretty low to regard all Trump supporters as some monolithic group of people with no ability to reason...as if they truly have no legitimate reason for maintaining their support for Trump...reasons which do not include taking everything he says a absolute fact...unable to distinguish between rhetoric and that which truly matters.
Or perhaps you would say there's some discernible difference between a "supporter" and a "Trainer". If so, how can you say that the Trainers are a significant percentage, assuming your use of the term is a purposeful slight on their intelligence?
Are you actually suggesting there are many...if any...who now won't vote for DeSantis because Trump said he's Fauci's biggest supporter? That there's some significant percentage of Trump supporters who make their voting decisions based on the goofy things Trump says as opposed to his track record as president? I insist to you that most support is based almost entirely on the obvious beneficial differences between Trump and Obama, Biden, Clinton and the two Bushes.
At the same time, if there is, say, 50% of Trump supporters who are so inane as to respond as your "Trump Trainer" comment suggests, how can you suppose there's not a comparable percentage of such people supporting your candidate...or every other candidate as well?
Are you still mostly a RDS guy? That's fine. But it appears most polls, and even a Real Clear Politics review of betting lines puts Haley in front of him. How many Haley Trainers are there you care to criticize?
I remain committed to saving the nation from it's destructive course, a course I blame on all those who denied Trump a second term. How much of his campaign promises not perfectly met might have been with another four years? Doesn't seem to matter to those who refuse to vote for him, since his record doesn't appear to truly be the reason for that refusal, while his eccentricities do. But I regard DJT and RDS both as good choices with proven records of beneficial accomplishments in executive positions, with DJT having an edge due to succeeding in the arena in question while facing obstruction from most every angle. Whichever wins the nomination has my support and vote. That's because what's truly important is the state of the nation. It's in total disarray now because of Trump-haters. Should DeSantis manage to win, I hope those Trump-haters don't become DeSantis-haters. If they do, I hope he's just as able to get things done in spite of them all as was the case with Trump. But if he does, and if he faces the same level of opposition and obstruction, will you criticize him for failing to achieve every promise? We'll likely never have the chance to know, but I can't help but feel the answer is "no" simply because he's not Trump.
Glenn,
The "narcissism" argument is lame and woefully misapplied. Here's a definition:
thinking very highly of oneself (Oh, the horrror!) needing admiration (more likely he assumes it's incoming without having to "need" it) believing others are inferior (in what way specifically?) lacking empathy for others (disproved by his willingness to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous dislike and still do the job on behalf of the American people without pay).
More than that, most of these traits can be applied to any number of political aspirants. Thus, it's meaningless to pretend that's a reason to dismiss him.
He can only get one term due to the refusal of so many to give him the second consecutive term he deserved based on his good track record the first time around. He's not preventing anyone from running OR winning. Those who are grateful for that good track record and feel it's more likely than not a second four years will be like the first. A most reasonable opinion to hold, as that's how everyone and everything else is judged. One bets on a sports team because they've proven themselves already. It's the same thing here.
Clearly, "qualified" people who are afraid to compete against him are less qualified by virtue of that fear.
And shame on you for condescending to his supporters as nothing more than a "mob", as if their concerns, desires and hopes are not justified and based on facts.
I really hate this shit!
Art,
In all the years I've seen Trump in all his venues, long before he ran for President, he always struck me as narcissistic. I think the definition fits. At the very least he's very arrogant.
Trump is preventing others from running by his refusal to step down and support someone else--and other qualified people aren't afraid, they just know it's useless. I consider a "mob" as the people who will not consider any other Republican for the office.
I would be super surprised if Trump wins because so many conservatives hate him for no reason. And the cheating on the LEFT will probably run Biden again and win with him or Mrs Obama.
Glenn,
I don't disagree with your comment. Yet, I would argue that anyone who runs for president needs to have some degree of narcissism to be successful. Yet it has to be balanced by a degree of humility and self awareness. Trump clearly doesn't grasp the concept of humility and equally clearly lacks self awareness and the ability to see himself through other's eyes. I wrote a while back that one problem with Trump winning is that his desire to trash or dismiss any GOP competitors, combined with his style almost guarantees that we'll have a DFL POTUS in 2028. Instead of 8 years of RDS or VR, we'll have 4 years of Trump then 4-8 years of a DFL POTUS.
I'm sure that every candidate has some degree of these "cult of personality"/"my guy can do no wrong" supporters. The difference is that most of them will rally behind the final candidate, not bitch about how their guy got screwed. Look at Bernie. He legitimately got 100% screwed by the DFL establishment, and he didn't spend years whining and bitching, instead he/his supporters turned out for Biden.
The difference between the Trump Trainers and Haley supporters is that Haley isn't setting herself up as beyond the process. She isn't hiding from her rivals, but is contesting with them.
The real question is how many Trump Trainers are going to vote for Haley if she's the candidate? How hard are you going to go after that Trainers for not voting against the DFL candidate. I now think Haley would not be a good POTUS, but I think she has a better chance to win than Trump does (assuming that the majority of the base doesn't bail)
If you'd payed attention to what I've written about presidents over the last decade, you'd know that I tend to be critical of GOP presidents when they screw up and supportive when they do well. I do hold keeping campaign promises as a standard of measurement (or at least attempting to or not doing the opposite of what was promised). I do because I think that making campaign promises is easy, it's buying votes, keeping campaign promises is hard but shows character.
I'm not sure why you have chosen this stance on Trump. Or why you decry anyone who isn't 100% on the Train as a "trump hater", I've stayed consistent about Trump since the first posts/comments I wrote about him back in 2015. Mostly, I'm disappointed in Trump. He had the chance to do so much, and he chose to throw that away on petty squabbling, lack of self control, lack of honesty, and his inability to accept responsibility for his actions.
I'll continue to evaluate every GOP candidate the same way that I always have. I'll also continue to not put all of my faith in a political candidate.
I can't remember a time when a GOP candidate has been quite as polarizing as Trump. Especially from the standpoint of the Trainers. Even acknowledging that he had some successes as president, I don't recall this level of almost hatred for anyone who isn't 100% on board with Trump as the national savior. (As the recent ad seems to indicate) I guess the notion of agree to disagree stops at the door to the Trump Train.
Glenn,
"In all the years I've seen Trump in all his venues, long before he ran for President, he always struck me as narcissistic."
What I posted as definition was the first definition I came across. Of all four of those aspects listed as indications of narcissism, only the first applies to Trump if one is being honest. Thus, a better description would simply be that he's one who's especially confident in himself. How he strikes you might be an issue of yours. Many people don't think fondly of another who is bold in his self-confidence. But how does self-confidence like his suggest he's a bad pick for president. There's a lot of huge problems thanks to his having been denied his justly deserved second term. I hope whoever wins the nomination for the GOP wins the general and has that level of self-confidence Trump has. He/she will freakin' need it.
"Trump is preventing others from running by his refusal to step down and support someone else--and other qualified people aren't afraid, they just know it's useless."
You've said this twice now and it's worse for your having done so. Trump's not preventing anyone from running. But it's clear those who won't try to run against him are lacking in the self-confidence they'll need to turn the nation around. So I see it as a good thing they won't make the effort. They're wrong for the job.
"I consider a "mob" as the people who will not consider any other Republican for the office."
What do you call those who won't consider Trump if he wins the nomination? And how many Trump supporters are actual members of this mob who won't vote for anyone else. As far as I've been able to determine, most Trump supporters are concerned about the nation and will indeed support a DeSantis, a Ramaswamy and maybe even a Haley if Trump doesn't win the nomination or is prevented from accepting the will of the people.
"I would be super surprised if Trump wins because so many conservatives hate him for no reason. And the cheating on the LEFT will probably run Biden again and win with him or Mrs Obama."
Frankly, I question the conviction of any self-identified conservative who would refuse to vote for Trump if he wins the nomination. That refusal pretty much belies the claim of their self-identification for putting their petty disdain for the man above the nation.
Craig,
"I'm not sure what you mean."
What I mean is I'm pretty certain you've stated you won't vote for him if he wins the GOP nomination. Have you changed your tune? Will you vote for him against whomever the Dems put up if Trump wins the GOP nomination? I've already confirmed I'm willing to vote for whomever wins the GOP nomination. I would hate if it turned out to be Haley. I don't think it will be Ramaswamy. But I'd be more than happy to vote for DeSantis. (I don't freaking get how he could be in third place behind a woman who might not even be eligible to run for Prez or VicePrez.)
And having stated (as I recall) your refusal to vote for him in the general if he wins the GOP nomination, I'm wondering if he altered his behavior and did all the things you suggest he must do, would you then vote for him. It's really more of a rhetorical question because I don't see this guy changing his spots any time soon or enough of them to satisfy one like yourself. I mean, since you now question his relationship with the truth (as if he's said anything so drastic that one who pays attention would take it with more than a grain of salt), could you believe he was sincere if he did what you insist he must do?
"Yet it has to be balanced by a degree of humility and self awareness. Trump clearly doesn't grasp the concept of humility and equally clearly lacks self awareness and the ability to see himself through other's eyes."
Trump critics say these things and it amazes me to no end. He's running for president. He is what he is, and what he is includes his good performance as president the first time around. The character traits his critics pretend are so disqualifying are those which allowed him to be as successful as he was in the face of so much obstruction. At the same time, none of you Trump critics make any effort to see things through his eyes, but instead expect him to account for the personal perceptions of each of those making up half the voting public. How does that make any sense? "Oh, I know Art's cool with me, but what can I do to make Craig like me?" Absurd.
For the average Trump supporter (and I support him and DeSantis both), it's the fact that he got positive results most people realized and experienced for themselves. They didn't experience such positive results for decades, but because he's snarky and talks smack...good gosh, give me rising prices and more crime because I just can't take nasty tweets!
"Yes, I do take the things he says seriously."
The problem is that you choose to take seriously that which is not said in earnest. We who aren't so tight-assed accept that he's not so Emily Post. Some of us actually find it amusing, but few of us find it worthy of pearl clutching. Rather, we're concerned with how many people take every little snarky thing he says so seriously. I fully doubt our enemies on the world stage bother with that crap. They know full well when to take him seriously. Your concern is what's know as a 1st World attitude or concern. Despite how badly our nation has been run since he was denied, we still got it soft. Your attitude about this guy is a manifestation of that.
"The very fact that you can dismiss Trump rewriting the history of how COVID was handled is concerning."
You keep saying shit like this as if it should be concerning. I seek to weigh the pros and cons of every politician in his case the balance leans heavily to another beneficially effective four years. You simply seek out every negative about this guy and reject him. Those who prefer Haley over DeSantis do the same thing.
Ya know, WK did a post about how DeSantis just keeps winning, with a post listing his gubernatorial accomplishments. It was a really good list. But then he weighed them against what Trump failed to accomplish. How the f**k is that a proper assessment? Would you like to lose out on a job because your negatives were all which was compared to the positives of the other guy? You do that as well with Trump. I haven't done that with anyone.
So I don't dismiss anything about Trump. I weigh all elements and find him a highly acceptable candidate for president. Based on the info I've seen thus far, there are three candidates with which I would feel comfortable as our next president. None are named "Haley", though if, God forbid, she rises to the top, I'd have no choice but to hope she'd be better than the jackwagon the Dems would offer. At this point in time, I don't think it matters which guy I choose. I think Trump's got is locked barring something unusual happening between now and then. Of the three I like, each needs to be supported by the party if made president. With full support of the party (not blind support, mind you), none of them can fail to MAGA.
"Hell, the fact that Trump would rather perform at a safe "town hall" instead of facing his competitors one time in a debate doesn't exactly radiate strength." That's only because you choose to regard it in this nonsensical manner. Before the first debate he was already polling miles ahead of the number two. He does plenty of townhalls where he is not known for controlling what questions are asked of him. Try going to one and ask whatever you like. His willingness to take questions is well known, even by members of the leftist press who didn't get the same freedom when their own Obama was stupidly elected twice. THAT suggests strength more than going to these crappy debates...each of which has been embarrassing by all accounts.
"The problem you have is that you can't conceive that I could find myself in a position between Dan's hand waving obsessions, and your head in the sand, tells me quite a bit."
The fact you suggest without basis my head is in the said says far more. It seems you have some need to believe that. Between the two of us, you're the one who refuses to consider the good Trump's done, preferring to focus on whatever you can to justify your opposition. Like Dan, you demand I regard Trump's negatives as you do. The fact is, for some of them I may indeed. That still doesn't mean those negatives should disqualify him for my support.
" Yet, somehow, you manage to blithely write it off as no big deal."
Most often because they aren't a big deal. That is, not such that it overwhelms the good he did. It's the good he did which matters most, given the good outweighs the bad. And they certainly aren't as big a deal as you need them to be to justify your rejection of him. And they most certainly don't compare to the negatives of the Biden administration. But hey...you can reject whomever you want to reject for whatever reason you think is justification. I'll focus on our nation not falling under Democrat control.
"Of course there are degrees of Trump support. There are the "lesser of two evils" folks who'll hold their nose and vote for him because they have no other option, and there are those for whom anything less that 100% adulation of trump is "Trump hatred" or TDS". What an idiotic notion to think that there aren't degrees of support."
Yeah, it is. Good thing I never suggested anything like that. But again, I seem to recall you insisting you won't vote for him if he wins the GOP nomination. So I ask yet again: am I remembering accurately, or am I mistaken? If he wins the nomination, will you vote for him? That's the only support worthy of discussing. Who you support in the primary is a different story. I'm still noncommittal myself. I'm more worried about those who claim to oppose the current administration being 100% committed to refusing to vote for Trump if he's the guy. I've nothing but contempt for such people given how badly things have gone since he was last denied.
"I think that there are Trainers who would not vote for RDS in the general because of the accumulation of Trump's attacks on him."
There are. I deal with them routinely. They're morons and I tell them so. Like those who insist they'll never vote for Trump, they're putting idiocy above what's best for the nation. At this point in time, what's best is keeping the Dems anywhere close to being in power. If that means I'll have to vote for Haley, that's what I'll do and then I'll be on her ass for four years. (I have written to Trump more than once with my personal encouragements to dispense with his snarky crap. I don't just talk about it.)
"I also think that there are people who might have voted for Trump, who won't because of these idiotic "throwaway" lines."
They're morons, too. I expect better from those who claim to be conservative. Focus on what matters. Stop wasting time on nonsense.
"FYI, I've heard the clip and it doesn't sound like a throwaway line to me."
I'm sure nothing you hear from Trump gets to your brain without first passing through your dislike of the man.
More later. I'm sure you can't wait!
"I'm sure that every candidate has some degree of these "cult of personality"/"my guy can do no wrong" supporters. The difference is that most of them will rally behind the final candidate, not bitch about how their guy got screwed."
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying you believe the average Trump supporter will assume chicanery if Trump doesn't win the nomination? When he lost the 2020, there was reason for suspicion. Is there reason to believe the same crap will be perpetrated by GOP forces to keep Trump from winning? I don't know how many confirmed Trumpers feel that way. I've seen no data on that. But given his historic lead at this point, if it remains to the end and he loses, how could you blame anyone for thinking he was screwed? So such bitching is dependent upon the circumstances surrounding his loss, not simply that he did lose. It's not appropriate to have such low regard for people you don't know based on nothing.
"The difference between the Trump Trainers and Haley supporters is that Haley isn't setting herself up as beyond the process. She isn't hiding from her rivals, but is contesting with them."
Are you suggesting candidates are somehow obligated to compete in debates? How so? Trump supporters know what they're getting. Anyone who pays attention should know the nation was in a far better state than before OR after his four years as president. And given the debates have been a huge joke, I don't think any harm it would bring him would be legitimate. So why should a guy with his lead, with his already large support, play that game. It's not like he's hiding given his rallies and town hall meetings. This is a lame reason to knock him.
"The real question is how many Trump Trainers are going to vote for Haley if she's the candidate? How hard are you going to go after that Trainers for not voting against the DFL candidate."
I'm already doing that. Go to AmericanThinker.com and scroll to any article about any of the candidates or any of the pieces about Trump and you'll see me giving crap to the true "OnlyTrumpers". As has been the case here, my primary concern is what is best for the nation. Trump is a proven commodity and to reject him on the basis of the most petty crap does not at all suggest a concern for the nation. I don't believe we'd be worse off with DeSantis than Trump, and I'd like to think VR would be as good, too, as I like a lot of what he says (though talk is cheap). I'm not at all keen on Haley, but if God forbid, she wins, I'll damned well give crap to anyone who won't support her over the Dem jackass. I will say of those likely to win the nomination, she's the most RINO still in the running. Very likely the ONLY RINO at this point.
" If you'd payed attention to what I've written about presidents over the last decade, you'd know that I tend to be critical of GOP presidents when they screw up and supportive when they do well."
It's been quite some time since you've last said anything good about Trump. You seem to focus on what he didn't get done without much focus at all on what he did get done. For the rest of the paragraph, one can't speak to failures without considering the reasons for them. One also can't speak of failures to keep promises when a second term is denied. Would you disagree that he did more good in four years than Obama did in eight? If you wouldn't, then that says something about his ability that should be considered a major plus. But you don't. Thus you give far more evidence of being a NeverTrumperNoMatterWhat than you've can pretend I've provided for to justify your suggestion I'm an OnlyTrumper.
"I'm not sure why you have chosen this stance on Trump."
What stance is that? I've been spending my time disputing what I regard as clearly insignificant points to hold against a second Trump term. I do this while insisting I'd be cool with DeSantis and even Ramaswamy, and while I wouldn't at all be cool with Haley, I'd still vote for her rather than see another Dem ever be POTUS again. Is this the stance you don't understand. All you've got to erect your unjustified perception of my "stance" is that I believe his first four years was absolutely good enough to justify giving him an edge...that it makes it his gig to lose. That's about as rational a stance as an objective person could have.
" Or why you decry anyone who isn't 100% on the Train as a "trump hater""
How close to 100% are you? Don't bother. It's a rhetorical question. You're clearly far from 100%. Indeed, unless you're going to insist it's not the case, I believe you confirmed you're 0% on the Train. That's certainly no better than a "trump disliker".
"I've stayed consistent about Trump since the first posts/comments I wrote about him back in 2015."
Fairly meaningless given he wasn't president in 2015. That's about as bad as Dan presenting two surveys of supposedly objective historians rating Trump the worst president before his first year was over.
"Mostly, I'm disappointed in Trump. He had the chance to do so much, and he chose to throw that away on petty squabbling, lack of self control, lack of honesty, and his inability to accept responsibility for his actions."
Again I ask, do you think he did more good for America in four years than Obama did in eight? If you believe that statement is true, that you're ignoring the good he did in order to say he had a chance to "do so much" BUT!... It's inane. If needed, I'm willing to again post a list of his accomplishments.
Here's a more honest angle: Trump was "OK", but I really think as good as he was, DeSantis will do so much better! That's at least reasonable because it doesn't require digging up what he wasn't able to accomplish and then padding that with bullshit.
"I'll continue to evaluate every GOP candidate the same way that I always have."
I'll believe that when you do a post on what you believe were great, or even just good and beneficial things Trump did, and then do a post on what you think DeSantis failed to do as governor. At this point, I'm not at all seeing an honest evaluation of any of them.
The fact of the matter is, that I've seen criticisms of DeSantis, though most have to do with how he's been campaigning, as if running a bad campaign means a damned thing. I've heard a few squawks about a thing or two he did as governor, but I don't recall anything that of any more significance than most of your complaints about Trump. VR simply has no record except as a business man, and I've heard some crap about that. All three have been successful in executive positions. More so than Christie, and I believe more so than Haley. I still don't know much about that dude from N. Dakota, but no one seems to even want to know, thus he's a non-starter.
"I'll also continue to not put all of my faith in a political candidate."
Not even an issue, but if pressed, I'd say I have the least faith in the electorate. Look what they've done to us!
"What I mean is I'm pretty certain you've stated you won't vote for him if he wins the GOP nomination. Have you changed your tune? Will you vote for him against whomever the Dems put up if Trump wins the GOP nomination?"
I'm unsure what it is about me saying that I haven't decided who I'll vote for almost a year before election day is confusing.
"I mean, since you now question his relationship with the truth (as if he's said anything so drastic that one who pays attention would take it with more than a grain of salt), could you believe he was sincere if he did what you insist he must do?"
I was unaware the Truth was measured on a sliding scale. I'm unaware as to why anyone looking for a candidate who was committed to telling the Truth is a bad thing.
"The problem is that you choose to take seriously that which is not said in earnest"
What an interesting notion. Taking the things a president/candidate says seriously, how absurd that we should take Trump at his word. The problem with this is that it puts you in the position of determining what Trump's motivation is when he says things, as well as in determining how I take Trump's words. That's quite a bit of baggage for you to take on.
"You keep saying shit like this as if it should be concerning"
Well, given what we now know about how COVID was handled it should be concerning for anyone to pretend like they did absolutely nothing wrong in handling COVID.
"Ya know, WK did a post about how DeSantis just keeps winning, with a post listing his gubernatorial accomplishments. It was a really good list. But then he weighed them against what Trump failed to accomplish. How the f**k is that a proper assessment?"
Well, when we assess baseball players we look at things like batting average. Batting average is a stat that compares success to failure. The higher the batting average, the more success a player has. In this case, when De Santis has a long list of accomplishments and a short list of failures, and Trump has a short list of accomplishments and a long list of failures, it seems like a reasonable measure of comparing similar job performance.
"Would you like to lose out on a job because your negatives were all which was compared to the positives of the other guy?"
Well, that's pretty much how me measure job performance.
The problem is that you appear to place more weight on Trump's "successes" and act as if every "success" is a 100% "success", while minimizing or excusing Trump's "failures". I probably put more weight on his "failures" because they are in areas that I find more important. I find things like fiscal policy, 2A issues, immigration, and infrastructure to be important. I also highly value things like honesty, integrity, and humility. SO, of course, I will tend to look at things that are important to me as areas where I evaluate others.
"The fact you suggest without basis my head is in the said says far more."
Yet, strangely enough, you have no problem leaping to conclusions about me as acting as if those conclusions are 100% accurate. Perhaps your problem is with being held to the same standard you hold others to.
"Between the two of us, you're the one who refuses to consider the good Trump's done, preferring to focus on whatever you can to justify your opposition."
Why look, an example you you doing what you complain about me doing. In this case, you simply choose to ignore what I've said repeatedly, and make this blanket false statement.
". It's the good he did which matters most, given the good outweighs the bad."
This is an interesting stance. The notion that Trump's "good" "outweighs" the massive increase in spending or the way COVID was handled certainly seems to minimize the extent of the damage those two issues alone have/will cause. That doesn't even take into account that Trump promised to do exactly the opposite of what he did on fiscal policy, and the fact that he still can't acknowledge the shit show that COVID was. I gave Trump a pass on COVID for quite a while because it was unprecedented. But the more we learn about how much of what the federal government said and did was based on made up bullshit, makes it harder and harder to be that charitable.
"But again, I seem to recall you insisting you won't vote for him if he wins the GOP nomination. So I ask yet again: am I remembering accurately, or am I mistaken? If he wins the nomination, will you vote for him?"
Well Dan, I guess asking the same thing over and over again even though It's been answered is some sort of effective strategy for persuasion, huh?
While we're talking about persuasion, are you sure that calling people "morons" and "idiots" is the best way to persuade them that you are right?
"I'm sure nothing you hear from Trump gets to your brain without first passing through your dislike of the man."
Again with you passing judgement on me based on your hunches. Having pointed out your hypocrisy again, and how unlikely this sort of tactic is to persuade, I'll simply note that it is perfectly normal to pass the things people say through a filter based on everything else we know about them.
"Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying you believe the average Trump supporter will assume chicanery if Trump doesn't win the nomination?"
No, I'm saying that all too many Trainers will simply sit out the election of Trump isn't the nominee. Although there will undoubtedly be plenty who'll pass of any outcome other Than Trump winning as persecution or problems with the election.
Marshall,
I think there are probably others out there just as qualified if not more but they know there's no point in running if Trump is a candidate because he will get the nomination regardless of who else is running.
Those who won't consider Trump if he is the GOP candidate are fools. If it's either him or a Demokrat, only fools would accept a Democrat. I will always, always vote for any Republican who is the candidate.
Craig,
"I'm unsure what it is about me saying that I haven't decided who I'll vote for almost a year before election day is confusing."
What's confusing is that I seem to recall something more emphatic than "I haven't decided" as it concerns Trump, which is why I asked two or three times here if what I seem to recall is correct. So I'll just ask you straight out: If Trump wins the GOP nomination (since that was the specific I seem to recall), will you vote for him in the general election? Given that I've made it clear more than once and after you suggested otherwise, that I intend to vote for whomever the GOP nominee turns out to be rather than see a Dem in the White House, it shouldn't be hard to respond to this question. Remember, you don't have to like the guy and to say you'll vote for him to prevent another four years of a Dem president won't compel me to regard you as a "Trump Trainer".
"I was unaware the Truth was measured on a sliding scale."
Well, now you know. That scale is not "any lie is bad", but which lie has he told which has any significance beyond pissing you off about not admitting he chopped down the cherry tree. I continue to ask the lefty haters, and I've asked you as well. What lie has he told that should be of any real concern to a voter? And if you choose to answer, be sure you're not picking out an unfulfilled campaign promise as if to say he never intended to fulfill it. That wouldn't be a lie. There have been tons of lies told about him which have lead to people rejecting him for president. Those are serious lies because they purposely sought to keep him out of office by doing so. We've suffered as a result. Has he told any lies of that degree of seriousness, that the nation suffered as a result?
" Taking the things a president/candidate says seriously, how absurd that we should take Trump at his word. The problem with this is that it puts you in the position of determining what Trump's motivation is when he says things, as well as in determining how I take Trump's words. That's quite a bit of baggage for you to take on."
Not at all, because it's not at all hard to tell when to brush off a statement of his as insignificant snark or a cheap shot. You act as if he said something which compelled you to act in a manner which had a negative result, like drinking bleach for COVID or something. Jeez. You know, when you talk about his spending, you at least have a legit complaint because of the impact government spending has on all of us. This nonsense about not knowing when you can take him seriously reflects far more poorly on you than on him. I know your discernment is better than that!
"Well, given what we now know about how COVID was handled it should be concerning for anyone to pretend like they did absolutely nothing wrong in handling COVID."
I don't know anybody who pretends like that. Trump's biggest mistake was keeping Fauci and despite the circumstances at the time...the unknowns and not even knowing what they didn't know...keeping that lying weasel around as long as he did is big problem for me, too. That's pretty much it. Other than that, what did Trump specifically do wrong about COVID?
That's all for now...
"Are you suggesting candidates are somehow obligated to compete in debates?"
Obligated, no. But failing to participate in the process does send a message to those one might be hoping to persuade.
"Trump supporters know what they're getting."
The problem isn't convincing the Trainers about what they're getting. It's about convincing enough of the electorate to win the general election. Clearly that Trainers aren't enough to put Trump across the finish line. Ignoring those who might support him, but don't, doesn't seem like a good strategy.
" to reject him on the basis of the most petty crap"
See, I don't consider failing to balance the budget (as he claimed) and then blowing up spending to be "petty crap" for a conservative. I consider our fiscal health one of the 2-3 most important issues, and I consider doing exactly the opposite of what a candidate promises to do (honestly, not even really attempting...) to not be "petty crap".
"It's been quite some time since you've last said anything good about Trump."
Well, but that's not the standard to judge by based on what I said. I have a long history of supporting presidents who do things I agree with (regardless of party), and of criticizing presidents when they don't (regardless of party). I've never shied away from looking at conservative presidents who do things that aren't conservative. In the case of Trump, I have acknowledged the things he did that I thought were good, regularly. I've also acknowledged that some or all of those things might not look as good in the future as they do now (SCOTUS justices have a history of not being quite as conservative as we'd like), and the debt certainly isn't getting better.
The reason why I seem to focus on the failures, is because I expect Trump (any similar candidate) to be able to explain why they failed, and what specific steps they will take to prevent the same failure if elected again. It's reasonable to expect Trump to explain why he didn't take care of spending, and how he plans to to better. If he can't or won't (or if he refuses to acknowledge his failures) then that raises red flags. If I wanted a candidate who is full of vague platitudes about how amazing they'll be, without specifics, I'd vote for a democrat.
"How close to 100% are you?"
Right now 55% ish.
"You're clearly far from 100%."
I'm not 100%, because there are alternatives that I believe bring more positives and less negatives. I'm not because trump hasn't addressed his failures, and provided details about how he'll do better that I've heard. I'm not because we are early in the primary season and it's a long way to go until November.
"Indeed, unless you're going to insist it's not the case, I believe you confirmed you're 0% on the Train. That's certainly no better than a "trump disliker"."
Once again, excellent tactics if your goal is to persuade.
"Fairly meaningless given he wasn't president in 2015."
If one concludes that Trump becoming a legitimate candidate for president in his first campaign is "meaningless". But hey, I've been consistent that Trump has some good things and he has some bad things and it's a matter of balancing out the two.
"Again I ask, do you think he did more good for America in four years than Obama did in eight?"
As long as you choose to only look at what you consider "good" and not balance it with what was not "good".
For example data suggests that Trump added about 8 Trillion to the federal debt in 4 years, while Obama added about 9.3 trillion in 8 years. I'd argue that adding 1.2 trillion/year is less bad than adding 2 trillion/year. My point is that "good" is subjective, and the your metric is simplistic.
Or one could look at the fact that Obama did virtually nothing to increase restrictions on the 2A, while Trump's ban on bump stocks did increase restrictions on the 2A.
Or we could look at Trump walking back his more pro life positions of his first term, and his less pro life positions this time around.
The point being, that you are choosing to put your focus on one aspect of Trump's term, while minimizing other aspects, which is exactly what you accuse me of doing.
The reality is that I do and have high expectations of the candidates I support. I expect high character, honesty, humility, along with everything else. I expect the candidates I support to be able to honestly asses their successes and failures, and tell us in detail how they'll do better.
"What's confusing is that I seem to recall something more emphatic than "I haven't decided" as it concerns Trump,..."
Well, who might be the better person to speak to what I believe and have said, you or me? If you keep insisting that this damning quote is out there, simply provide it (along with the link for context). Dan does the same thing, I ask him the same thing, and so far neither of you have provided a quote/link.
" So I'll just ask you straight out: If Trump wins the GOP nomination (since that was the specific I seem to recall), will you vote for him in the general election?"
I'll try this one more time. I will not make a definitive statement about who I will vote for in a general election 10 months before election day, and before the first primary. The fact that I've already said this, should have been a clue.
"Well, now you know."
I know what? That you've personally decided that Truth is really measured on a sliding scale and that "little lies" aren't still lies? Sorry, I absolutely refuse to compromise on Truth. You can do as you like.
Since Fauci was effectively the entirety of the Trump response to COVID, and as we keep learning that the data that under girded the clinical trials was bullshit, that the 6' was bullshit, that masks were bullshit, that the "vaccine" probably causes more harm than good, giving big pharma a free pass on liability, sending Collins out to bully churches into closing, shut downs, not ending shut downs.. Given what we know now, the question is really about what he did the was right during COVID.
But, this is the problem with your entire screed here. How Trump handled COVID is absolutely 100% an issue that should be discussed in his campaign. The last I heard he hasn't repudiated Fauci, and still thinks he did a great job with COVID. I know you'd like to brush this off as minor, but how can you since the last 18 months of his term was during COVID?
Look, I get it, you don't think that what a president says has any meaning unless you decide it does. I guess that I think that self control is a positive thing, not a negative thing.
OK Mike, Take the firearms first and then go to court, because that's another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court , to get the due process procedures.
I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.
Just a couple of throw away lines that we shouldn't be concerned about at all, right?
"The vaccine is one of the greatest achievements of mankind,"
"I came up with a vaccine, with three vaccines all are very, very good,"
"The ones that get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don't do the vaccine, but it's still their choice," he said. "And if you take the vaccine you're protected, the results of the vaccine are good."
It seems reasonable that Trump should acknowledge that the problems with these statements and with the vax itself.
I just went through your responses quickly and feel compelled to respond to them rather than go back where I left off prior. But your responses are concerning because you're making far more assumptions about what I'm saying than I ever have been about what you're saying. For now, I just want to address two things:
1. Either Trump's four years made life better for us than Obama's eight, or it didn't. Reagan asked a similar question when he was first running before being elected (or was he comparing his first term to Carter in order to get a second term?...I'd have to look it up to be sure). My question is just as rational and simple with regard to whether or not you'd vote for him in the general. Are you suggesting there's someone from the Dem Party you'd pick over Trump? I can't imagine anyone in that party worthy of the White House. I think the outside chance that someone more conservative and angelic might show up as someone likely to out do both GOP and Dem nominees...with great appeal to all Americans...but I'm talking about the real world where we're likely to see only two people with any hope of winning the election. In this hypothetical, it's Trump and any Democrat. In that case, have you said you won't vote for Trump regardless, or were you only speaking of the primaries, in which case, it doesn't matter, because I know lots of folks won't vote for him then (just not nearly enough as things are going now).
2. Lies. The thing about lies is that there is a sliding scale as regards the severity and significance of a lie. (I'm talking about actual lies, not beliefs of Trump which can be proven untrue...big difference) So again, which "lies" told by Trump have had an effect of any significance? If one can't be named, then the "Trump's got a problem with the truth" is not a significant criticism except to pad the list.
And let me add one more thing for now, refer to those you'd be more likely to support in the primary and tell me which of them have dealt with their failures in the way you insist Trump must deal speak to his. Was Haley perfect as governor and ambassador? Was DeSantis perfect as governor? Frankly, I don't care because (Haley aside because I think she's not worthy in any case) DeSantis has been a great governor and like Trump, he doesn't need to be perfect...just effective in the aggregate...like Trump was.
I'm going to get more into these things, as I'm without a doubt you can't wait.
Look, respond or don't respond, I don't really care at this point. As long as your persuasive technique consists of calling those who don't agree with you "idiots" and the like, I fail to see the value.
I'll simply note that as a Christian, I'm on board with the notion that Truth is a binary. A lie is a lie, even if it's told for a good reason. I don't buy the "my truth" thing, nor do I buy the sliding scale thing. I especially can't agree with telling a lie when there's no reason to do so, other than convenience. I AM distinguishing between Trump's actual lies, and his bullshit claims where he just throws something out with no idea if it's True or not. Although, I find that tendency to be unattractive and concerning in a person with the level of power a president has.
"Are you suggesting there's someone from the Dem Party you'd pick over Trump?"
Since this is actually a good question, I'll give it a shot.
In theory, the answer is yes. When I think of running for office, before I come to my senses, I frequently think that I'd run as a dem. I wouldn't change my beliefs of policy ideas, but up here running as GOP isn't always a good thing. So, if De Santis ran as a dem and changed nothing else, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Honestly, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd give serious consideration to voting for Truman is he ran in 2024 as a dem.
I'm not sure I think she's a great choice, but I'd consider Gabbard at least in a primary.
The reality is that I would absolutely vote for a conservative dem over a liberal GOP candidate.
I think that the republican party has, in many ways, abandoned many conservative principles and conservatives (we don't have a good alternative, but the GOP isn't nearly as conservative as it used to be.). In short, I'm moving away from blind party loyalty, and toward voting for the best candidate possible. Right now I think that the Libertarians are much more compatible with conservatism than the GOP, although they definitely have some problems.
So, that's maybe a bit long winded and meandering, but the short answer is I could definitely see myself voting for a democrat who's views and policies aligned with mine. The chances of that are tiny, but not 0.
Post a Comment