A while back, Bud Light engaged in an ad campaign starring a "trans" person. In this case it was a biological male who presents as a woman. Conservatives began a unofficial boycott which was so effective that it resulted in the campaign being cancelled, but not apology or acknowledgement of the mistake by Bud Light.
Now for some reason trump decided to weigh in months later. He's insisting that A-B is a "great American company", although AB beverage is actually a Belgian owned company, and that their purchase of American wheat should absolve them of consequences.
I'll start by saying that this is one more instance of Trump wasting time and bandwidth on something that's a non issue. It was old news, and given the reality of Bud Light, it's unlikely that anyone will switch back from whatever bland replacement they've found. If trump was really worked up about this, he should have started by suggesting that AB beverage start by actually apologizing.
He went on to suggest that he's coming up with a list of other companies that are more worthy of boycott, and suggesting that the boycott move somewhere else. As if it's impossible to boycott more than one company at a time. Hell, I've been "boycotting" Target, Wal Mart, and Home Depot for years. It's not that hard.
He is right that it is a shame to waste the momentum of what happened with Bud Light by not applying it elsewhere, although I suspect that people liked the more ground up aspects of the Bud Light boycott more than they'll like Trump telling them who to boycott.
Finally, the wheat that Bud Light buys is still going to be bought by someone. If Bud Light really wants to go to the added expense of importing wheat, more power to them. I suspect that the added cost would out even more financial strain on them and be a net negative.
Ultimately, this is one more example of Trump wasting time, energy, and bandwidth is something that is not worth his time, and is unlikely to help him get reelected. He's got no time to explain his fiscal policies and how he's not going to "f" it up this time around, but he's got time to lecture us about who to boycott.
23 comments:
Do you have a link to that from which you drew this item? What was the context surrounding his mentioning Bud Light? Regardless of whether it is or isn't technically an American company, are there not many Americans employed by them who might be impacted by any boycott?
I couldn't boycott AB, because I could never stand the crappy taste of Budweiser beer. It's the same with Starbucks, a far more egregious leftist outfit. Their coffee is crap. I guess in that sense, I've been boycotting them both for many years.
Getting back to the post, you clearly want to regard his fiscal policies as having been "f'd up", but that requires those fiscal moves which did good for the economy. That would be his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his energy policies. But I'm quite on board with hoping he'll not enable the same degree of spending as the in his first time around, regardless of whether or not he provides details in that regard.
But as important as that absolutely is, we're more than ever down to the usual "either/or" choice, especially given the fact that Haley did worse than "none of the above" in Nevada. For anyone to focus on a what negatives they find compellingly on Trump's "con" side of the scale, one is obligated to decide if those negatives justify withholding one's vote for him in the general election, thereby easing the path of the destroyers to maintain their grip on power. What more help does he need to get elected except to have all those who are still on the fence to be bitch-slapped awake? We're clearly in "no-brainer" territory now.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-politics/trump-says-bud-light-ad-mistake-epic-proportions-threatens-release-list-woke-companies
A quick Google search turns up multiple stories. I'm not on Truth, nor do I follow trump so I don't have the entire text of his statement, although it should be readily available.
As far as I can tell there was no context, he just made a random post telling people to stop boycotting Bud Light.
It's not a "technical" issue. Bud Light is owned by a company AB In Bev which is a 100% Belgian company. If their American workers are "hurt" (the parent company seems to have done reasonably well despite the boycott), then isn't it Bud Light's fault for using Mulvaney in their ad campaign?
I also didn't boycott them for that reason. You can't boycott what you don't drink. I try to avoid Starbucks, but occasionally have no option but to meet there. I'm not much for coffee, and Caribou is better anyway.
Again you read more into my issues than I intend. Clearly any administration that adds 2 trillion per year to the debt has bad fiscal policy. Clearly even his fiscal success was overwhelmed by his out of control spending. That's the problem, it doesn't matter how much more you bring in, if you increase spending so that the increased revenue doesn't offset the spending.
In all seriousness, are you really suggesting that wasting time with this stupid Bud Light idiocy is more productive that forming and explaining fiscal policy and how he's going to do better if he wins? I was unaware that busting boycotts is one of the presidents duties. But hey, as long as you're willing to put all your eggs in the "I hope he does "better" this time around", that's awesome. As long as he only adds 9.75 trillion to the debt over the next 4 years, that's a big win, right? If we had detailed information about his plans for fiscal policy, we wouldn't be relying on hope, would we?
If you think that bashing Haley as she self destructs in the primaries (she's out after SC) somehow absolves Trump from making the case for his policies, then you really do rely on hope. Trump isn't running against Haley (he's bashing her and taking snarky potshots) but he's not running against her. He's made it clear that he's too exalted to be bothered with running against any primary opponents. Which wouldn't be a problem is he was actually running against Biden, but he's not really doing that either. Unless you consider bashing, snark, and potshots a serious campaign strategy. He's wasting time on bullshit instead of policy. Why, because he knows that folks like you will rely on hoping that he'll somehow do better.
All Trump has to do to avoid me pointing out his stupid crap, is stop doing stupid crap. Same with Biden. If Biden wasn't claiming to have communicated with the dead, I wouldn't have pointed it out.
What he needs to do to get elected, is to act like policy and details are important. I have no problem that he'd be "better" than Biden, but that's a damn low bar. Trump has voters like you locked up virtually without regard to what he says or does, but that doesn't get him elected as 2020 proved. He needs to persuade the people who want to vote against Biden, to vote for him. A task he seems unaware of needing to do. He has the opportunity to start a serious general election campaign now, he could challenge all sorts of democrats (including Biden or Harris) to debate starting now instead of waiting. Instead he's simply taking potshots at anyone who won't kiss his ring, and wasting time on stupid stuff.
I guess having semi high expectations of candidates is passe now, as long as the better then the old white guy with dementia, it's all good.
"A quick Google search turns up multiple stories."
Did you become aware of it telepathically? We should try to post our sources when reporting what we've heard or read. Just sayin'.
" If their American workers are "hurt" (the parent company seems to have done reasonably well despite the boycott), then isn't it Bud Light's fault for using Mulvaney in their ad campaign?"
Well, of course. But was Trump thinking of the employees or some foreign corporation? I dunno. Seems reasonable to have expected such details here.
"I also didn't boycott them for that reason. You can't boycott what you don't drink. I try to avoid Starbucks, but occasionally have no option but to meet there. I'm not much for coffee, and Caribou is better anyway."
That's what I was saying. If Guinness would have done that, I would be sad to give up Guinness. But like you, I already rejected Bud long ago because I think it tastes bad. Same with Starbucks. It's been some time since I've tasted Caribou coffee, but as I recall, it tasted like Starbucks.
"Clearly any administration that adds 2 trillion per year to the debt has bad fiscal policy. Clearly even his fiscal success was overwhelmed by his out of control spending. That's the problem, it doesn't matter how much more you bring in, if you increase spending so that the increased revenue doesn't offset the spending."
Did you do the math? I didn't. But nonetheless, such a conclusion one way or the other would require itemizing the spending and separating positive spending from negative spending and then include the revenues received as a result of his tax and regulatory policies. Like everybody else before him (and certainly like Doh! Biden) overspending took place. When was the last time a spending bill or a budget wasn't swollen with pork?
"In all seriousness, are you really suggesting that wasting time with this stupid Bud Light idiocy is more productive that forming and explaining fiscal policy and how he's going to do better if he wins?"
No. But I didn't think it was serious enough to do a post about it, either. In all seriousness, are you really suggesting every utterance by a public figure must be serious? Are you really suggesting his lack of explaining his fiscal policy will impact whether or not you'll vote for him against whatever Dem will be running? BTW, have you written to him in an attempt to have your concerns addressed?
" But hey, as long as you're willing to put all your eggs in the "I hope he does "better" this time around", that's awesome. As long as he only adds 9.75 trillion to the debt over the next 4 years, that's a big win, right? If we had detailed information about his plans for fiscal policy, we wouldn't be relying on hope, would we?"
My true hope is that what some people want to believe is essential before choosing a candidate, it won't result in Dems running the show again. I don't have to deal in hope to know what will happen if Trump isn't elected and the Dems win again. We're seeing it all day every day. With that reality in mind, my hope is that we survive if such overblown sophistication results in Dems running the show.
There is always a question as to whether any president will do better in a second term. Everyone hopes that will be the case. Nothing any president or candidate says is ever guaranteed to come to pass or that a given person will even make the effort to insure that any of it does. No. We all hope it will be better. But as regards will it be better for us to have Trump again rather than any other likely winner in November, I don't have to hope. It's pretty much a given. It's just a matter of how much better.
"If you think that bashing Haley as she self destructs in the primaries (she's out after SC) somehow absolves Trump from making the case for his policies, then you really do rely on hope. Trump isn't running against Haley (he's bashing her and taking snarky potshots) but he's not running against her."
No, I don't, and yes he is. It's still the primaries and at present he's running against her and anybody else still left in the race (Asa? Are you still there?). I think it's a done deal and thus Trump must prevail come November.
"He's made it clear that he's too exalted to be bothered with running against any primary opponents"
Really? When did he say that? Or are you just projecting that onto him because he clearly didn't need to given how strong his base already was? But you're talking about the debates. The debates were nonsense.
" Unless you consider bashing, snark, and potshots a serious campaign strategy. He's wasting time on bullshit instead of policy. Why, because he knows that folks like you will rely on hoping that he'll somehow do better."
Even with the imperfections of his first term, one would have to have been paying no attention to have no idea how he might operate in a second term. And again, folks like me don't "hope" he'll do better than the current clown in office. Trump did better than Obama and he certainly did far better than the current clown. But like everyone else, we of course hope he'll do even better than his own first term. Can you honestly speak of a time when you didn't hope a favored politician would do better than his current record? Can you list a few of your favored politicians who said "These are the issues on which I f**ked up and this is how I'll do better"? Which of your favored politicians did you reject for not having said anything like that?
"All Trump has to do to avoid me pointing out his stupid crap, is stop doing stupid crap."
I'm one day going to have to go through your archives to find that post where you lauded him for anything. Nothing comes to mind at present. Surely there must be at least one post like that.
"What he needs to do to get elected, is to act like policy and details are important."
While the stimulating GOP debates were happening, Trump was holding townhall events. Did you watch any of them?
Do you think details about his policy proposals will mean a damned thing to all those who hate him and think anybody but him is best for America? While you bemoan those you think are "locked up", so too are there many locked against him. Yet he still has a record superior to either Obama or Biden and likely Bush and Clinton, too, but you think he has to jump through hoops beyond just referring folks to his record. Yeah, sure, I'd love to hear details myself. But it's crystal clear life will improve if he's elected come November.
Or, like 2020, nothing he says or does will matter because of massive election fraud. If haters and others who insist on holding him to a standard far higher than they've demanded of others insist he must do this or that, as if every damned one of you have the same this or that in mind, he won't be elected. Get him in office and worry about the details then. All that matters is no Dem wins. Period. If you think your demands are more important than that, you're part of the problem. Again, how many letters, phone calls or emails have you sent his way? Do you do that with any politician? Has your Congressional rep ever received a note from you? How about your state reps? I've sent multiple messages to all of them, including Trump.
"He needs to persuade the people who want to vote against Biden, to vote for him."
He's the only one left. If the difference between Trump's record and Biden isn't enough for anyone who wants to vote against Biden, nothing he could say will make any difference. I don't think it'll make any difference with you. You're either going to bite the bullet or you're going take up the backside. I bit the bullet back in 2016. It worked out far better than I thought possible. Now I know what's likely as a result.
" I guess having semi high expectations of candidates is passe now, as long as the better then the old white guy with dementia, it's all good."
No it's not. But it was never about putting superficial crap above performance. Good manners is great and preferred. Performance is mandatory. He performed very well, even if not perfect. And while you insist you're not about perfection, your criticisms belie that claim.
One more thing:
It's one thing to insist upon what Trump must being doing in order to get elected. It's another to ignore what voters must be doing in order to have elected someone who will improve our lot. Trump will be Trump and still do well enough to validate anyone's choice for him for whatever reason they chose him, just as he did the first time around. He'll waste time on crap and still do more than what many believed he could get done. He'll do well despite those who will focus on where he didn't.
"Did you become aware of it telepathically?"
No. A number of conservatives who I follow on various outlets all addressed it. Again, Walsh was one of those.
" But was Trump thinking of the employees or some foreign corporation?"
Obviously it was. His shtick was his concern about farmers, but based on our farms production and my son who works for the USDA, farmers who raise wheat would not have a problem selling their wheat if Bud Light went away completely. For the most part farmers sell their wheat to big ag companies who then sell it to their end users. Cargill (for example) is going to buy every bushel of wheat they can because they know that they can sell it, and they have the ability to hold it if necessary. Farmers don't sell their wheat directly to Bud.
"Did you do the math?"
Yes. Obviously, the notion of "good or bad" spending is somewhat subjective. But regardless of the subjective conclusion, that 8 trillion is going to be a part of putting our grandchildren is a really shitty position. If you're going to do that sort of deep dive then you'd have to take into account the interest that would have to be paid on the 8t, for decades/centuries as well.
" But I didn't think it was serious enough to do a post about it, either. In all seriousness, are you really suggesting every utterance by a public figure must be serious?"
No, but presidents are not Kardashians. What a president says has effects that can ripple far beyond the US. If you point is that we should ignore certain things that presidents say on some subjective criteria, then we should probably ignore Biden talking to dead people as well.
"Are you really suggesting his lack of explaining his fiscal policy will impact whether or not you'll vote for him against whatever Dem will be running?"
Possibly, but I can't believe that it's going to affect nobody either.
"BTW, have you written to him in an attempt to have your concerns addressed?"
No.
At least you're honest in acknowledging that for all your certainty, that it's really just you hoping things will be different/better.
That was my point. It is a done deal and Trump is wasting time bashing Haley, which gives her credibility (why bash someone if they aren't a threat?). and takes away from what he says his goal is.
I'm simply pointing out that his refusal to debate any of his primary opponents in any forum sends the message that they aren't worth his time, and that he's unwilling to be challenged or confronted by his opponents.
Feel free, I've said plenty of positive things about Trump. Hell, I've done multiple posts about his legal bullshit. If you're looking for the fawning kind of crap Dan writes about people like P-BO, or that you write about Trump, you'' be disappointed. But if you're looking for me saying positive things about his accomplishments, it's there.
"While the stimulating GOP debates were happening, Trump was holding townhall events. Did you watch any of them?"
Some. I'm not a big fan of those curated events. I've heard his shtick and platitudes, I'm looking for more depth.
"Do you think details about his policy proposals will mean a damned thing to all those who hate him and think anybody but him is best for America."
Who knows? What I am sure about is that if Trump's goal is to make those who "hate" him support him, then he's wasting his time anyway. He does, however, need to do something to persuade those who aren't sold on him that they have solid reasons to hold their noses and vote for him anyway.
"But it's crystal clear life will improve if he's elected come November."
Which is it? Is it "crystal clear" that things will be objectively better, or do you "hope" things will be better.
It's interesting that Trump's attempt to appeal to more voters lead him to conclude that softening his pro life position would draw people to him.
If there is going to be "massive election fraud", then clearly there's no point in investing any energy in his campaign.
Much like the 49ers last week, it's good to get the excuses out early.
"But it was never about putting superficial crap above performance."
Character, honesty, integrity, and consistency don't seem like "superficial crap". The reason I'm licensed with the company I'm licensed with is because they put character above mere performance. Because they believe that people will want to work with other people who don't simply see them as another transaction. Cool, if you want performance over character, you do you.
"And while you insist you're not about perfection, your criticisms belie that claim"
Seriously, repeating this bullshit over and over doesn't help you at all. I've never said I wanted perfection.
In this case, I can't see that expecting Trump to focus on the main thing instead of on bullshit, is expecting perfection.
"It's one thing to insist upon what Trump must being doing in order to get elected."
I'm not insisting, as much as I am pointing out that wasting time on Haley who's already beaten instead of Biden is a waste of his time.
I can't help but wonder if the fact that Jeff Miller a lobbyist for AB is holding a $10K/plate fundraiser for Trump are connected in any way.
FYI, the couple we're traveling with next week were rabid Trump supporters back in '16 and '20. They're not any more. They'll probably hold their noses and vote for him, but they really wanted someone else instead of Trump this time around.
These are the people Trump needs to be worried about.
" If you point is that we should ignore certain things that presidents say on some subjective criteria, then we should probably ignore Biden talking to dead people as well."
But conversely, your point seems to be that we should take seriously certain things Trump says based on some subjective criteria. What is lost by ignoring this particular thing Trump said about Budweiser? Mountain out of molehill much?
"Possibly, but I can't believe that it's going to affect nobody either."
Well, this is disturbing give how common...to almost a guarantee...that whichever Dem runs will not spend like a drunken sailor if elected. Of course this sets aside the role of Congress in spending...just as, if not more, important than whether or not a president proposes any spending.
"At least you're honest in acknowledging that for all your certainty, that it's really just you hoping things will be different/better. "
More accurately, I acknowledged how each of us shares that hope for whomever we support, as well as for anyone currently in office. You may feel confident that, say, DeSantis would do better, but that's not any less than a hope given you haven't any special powers of prognostication.
"It is a done deal and Trump is wasting time bashing Haley, which gives her credibility (why bash someone if they aren't a threat?). and takes away from what he says his goal is."
We know that most of the others have bashed him and they've all been in the same position of vying for the nomination. I'm pretty sure most people whether or not they support Trump aren't as in to the details you demand he must present every time he opens his mouth.
"I'm simply pointing out that his refusal to debate any of his primary opponents in any forum sends the message that they aren't worth his time, and that he's unwilling to be challenged or confronted by his opponents."
Well, it certainly does to you. Not convinced is does to most people. This is a guy who's been challenged and confronted by opponents since 2015, and he's responded to some and dismissed others. All those opponents on the debate stage need to be promoting themselves, not attacking him as if he's been a disaster of a president as Biden and Obama were.
"Some. I'm not a big fan of those curated events. I've heard his shtick and platitudes, I'm looking for more depth."
And you think you'd have gotten that had he joined in the debates? That's funny. I don't think those presents much depth from any of the candidates compared to a long form interview can.
"He does, however, need to do something to persuade those who aren't sold on him that they have solid reasons to hold their noses and vote for him anyway."
What obligation do the voters have to inform themselves based on that which a bit of investigation can reveal? How can anyone convince themselves he's not worthy of their vote against whomever the Dems put up? Good gosh, investigation isn't really necessary given the difference in the state of the nation between his first term and what's come since he was cheated out of a second term.
"Which is it? Is it "crystal clear" that things will be objectively better, or do you "hope" things will be better."
Maybe you should put off reading my comments until you have time to do so without merely skimming. I was distinguished between knowing he'll make things better if elected, while hoping he'll do better than he did the first time. There's no way he'll make things worse than Biden has made them and there's no way there won't be any improvement unless the obstructionists step up their efforts to obstruct simply because he's Donald Trump. So even if he doesn't do a better job that he did in his first term, he'll still without any doubt do better than the asshole now in the White House. How could he not? He's not anywhere near as stupid as Dan needs to believe he is, anymore than Biden was the stellar public servant Dan stupidly pretended he was.
"It's interesting that Trump's attempt to appeal to more voters lead him to conclude that softening his pro life position would draw people to him."
I don't think he did. I think he acknowledged the emotional sentiment the issue provokes.
"If there is going to be "massive election fraud", then clearly there's no point in investing any energy in his campaign."
Maybe that's Trump's attitude, too.
"Much like the 49ers last week, it's good to get the excuses out early."
You mean the next SuperBowl Champion?
"Character, honesty, integrity, and consistency don't seem like "superficial crap"."
His character and integrity was confirmed by his performance, which is how it's supposed to work. But good character doesn't mean jack if one can't or fails to perform. You might be enamored with the character of your employer, but is it his character which provides your paycheck or his performance. Jimmy Carter is said to be a man of character and integrity and he sucked as president.
But to clarify, as if it would need to be with one not so adamantly opposed to Trump, the manifestations of what you believe demonstrates a terminal lack of Character, honesty, integrity, and consistency is indeed superficial crap. Little of it have resulted in any great harm even if we include his increase of the debt...which all presidents have done. (Again, presidents aren't solely responsible for that)
Moreover, to spew that bullshit that I "want" performance over character intentionally distorts my position. Nothing I said so much as hints at such nonsense. But character without performance is not what we want in any person of authority...or ANYONE for that matter. When we need anything done, performance IS more important than the character of the person performing.
And now, when he's the guy running against the Democrats...as I'm sure he will be barring bullshit arrests, assassination or untimely natural death...performance is the only measure anyone with a brain and a heart for the nation should be considering. There's no write-in or third party option who will displace either Trump or his Dem opponent. So pick. And if character still means as much as you say, then Trump is still the guy given the low character of the typical Dem these days.
"Seriously, repeating this bullshit over and over doesn't help you at all. I've never said I wanted perfection."
When you spend so much time focused on Trump's imperfections, it's impossible to believe otherwise. It's clearly not good enough for you that his performance was better than every president we've had in several decades. That's not enough to recommend him. You simply hope that another would do better.
"I can't help but wonder if the fact that Jeff Miller a lobbyist for AB is holding a $10K/plate fundraiser for Trump are connected in any way."
Could be. Should he crap on those who contribute to his efforts or treat them well? In discussions with Trump supporters, I constantly dealt with accusations about who was funding DeSantis.
"FYI, the couple we're traveling with next week were rabid Trump supporters back in '16 and '20. They're not any more."
Why? Didn't they like a growing economy? My wife would also prefer someone else. I've not been opposed to someone else. I simply don't pretend the reasons to replace him are more plentiful than reasons to support him.
Trump is his own worst enemy. He needs to just shut up.
Glenn,
If he'd just stay off of social media, it'd be a huge improvement.
I guess taking trump seriously when he's speaking as of he's serious is a crazy criteria.
I guess the only way to make Trump's spending not look as bad as it was is to posit something worse.
Since I'm not demanding details every time he opens his mouth, it seems ridiculous to say that I am. As you keep insisting, it's a done deal, yet Trump is choosing not to move of to the general. Instead, just bashing Haley.
Obviously I'm talking about what's important to me, who else would I be concerned with? Although, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in what I'd like to see.
Yes, I am sure that Trump's curated events are not going to get the kind of adversarial questions that he'd get in a debate.
I was unaware that the purpose of a political campaign was to force voters to ferret out details and plans that may not even exist. Good plan, that'll be a great way to appeal to undecided voters.
I'm not making a Super Bowl prediction, although I want the Chiefs to win. That doesn't stop me from realizing SF started laying the groundwork for excuses for their potential loss last week.
I sent you the opportunity to make your case to someone who's asking for reasons to vote for Trump, good luck.
Glenn,
As I've said to Craig (and countless others), Trump is Trump and he'll continuing being Trump. His supporters understand that well and don't make a big deal about every fart and burp which emanates from his orifices. The vast majority of that which pisses people off are insignificant except for piling on to existing reasons to disparage him...padding the list of reasons for such.
But I can't argue that it works against him, but only because so many who ought to know better make like his utterances are worthy of serious attention. He doesn't have to shut up. The NeverTrumpers need to chill.
"If he'd just stay off of social media, it'd be a huge improvement. "
Is anyone forced to read what he says there? I see so much stuff about what various people say on social media and I rarely feel compelled to comment on it, much less read it for myself.
"I guess taking trump seriously when he's speaking as of he's serious is a crazy criteria."
I'd say snarky corruptions of different opinions is crazier. Perhaps you've not listened to him enough to know when to be concerned about whatever it is he's saying at a given time. I find it strange that those who question his abilities and character would then insist every utterance of his should be brilliant, profound and compelling.
"I guess the only way to make Trump's spending not look as bad as it was is to posit something worse."
Who's doing that? The spending during his time, even prior to COVID, was his blackest mark on the negative side of his ledger. I don't know that anyone can find anything worse. Of course, it should be remembered how much authority he actually has to spend anything. All in all, it's a group effort between House, Senate and the president, with the latter having the least authority.
" Since I'm not demanding details every time he opens his mouth, it seems ridiculous to say that I am. As you keep insisting, it's a done deal, yet Trump is choosing not to move of to the general. Instead, just bashing Haley."
It's a done deal so far as all present data and polling suggest, but there's been no GOP convention yet to name the candidate. I can see no way she could overcome the current massive lead Trump has over her, but technically it could happen.
I find it incredibly strange that anyone needs specifics to know that he is the best option still in the hunt. Haley was never truly a good option. No Democrat is better than even her, much less better than Trump. The entire thing should be a "done deal" at this point, but for all those who think themselves lacking legitimate reason to throw their support behind Trump, or worse, believing they have legitimate reason not to.
"Obviously I'm talking about what's important to me, who else would I be concerned with? Although, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in what I'd like to see."
Oh, hell no. There's much I'd like to see, and I'm referring solely to Trump. I wanted to see DeSantis convince everyone to support him so we'd no longer have to suffer bullshit comments about Trump. That didn't happen and I don't expect each and every thing I'd like to see about Trump will come to fruition, either. He might not even be permitted to run and win! That would be because another thing I'd like to see isn't happening now.
"Yes, I am sure that Trump's curated events are not going to get the kind of adversarial questions that he'd get in a debate."
If your comment about "curated" means he's been restricting hardball questions, I'd love to see evidence for that. He doesn't really have a history of preventing folks from asking him whatever they like. He was known for such openness even by members of the lefty media while he was president. Were you unaware of this?. So here's this guy accused of being pompous, arrogant, narcissistic and somehow he's afraid of questions? That seems somewhat incongruent.
"I was unaware that the purpose of a political campaign was to force voters to ferret out details and plans that may not even exist. Good plan, that'll be a great way to appeal to undecided voters."
I was unaware candidates were obliged to read the minds of each and every eligible "undecided" voter to ferret out exactly what each of them demands the candidate tell them while each of them sits on their asses waiting for that to come to pass.
I'm still confused about how anyone could possibly be undecided in the first place. It's either Trump or whatever Dem asshat is put up against him. Was Trump's time in office better for America than Obama's eight? Or Biden's three? Or GW Bush's eight? It's a pretty easy question to answer for anyone honest. If Trump never speaks another word between now and the first Tuesday of November, that's pretty much the most important info an honest "undecided voter" needs.
"I'm not making a Super Bowl prediction, although I want the Chiefs to win. That doesn't stop me from realizing SF started laying the groundwork for excuses for their potential loss last week."
I don't know you've provided a true analogy. I haven't heard these so-called "excuses" you're implying Trump is putting forth (if indeed you mean him). But it's not mere "excuses" to cite the many ways illegitimate actions were perpetrated to block him in 2020, and the very high likelihood there will be more of it, even though most people are aware it will happen. This isn't at all an irrational "fear" given it happened already. Will there be enough people who've had with Dems, and enough people who are no longer willing to pretend Trump is a questionable option versus all others who are clearly inferior to overcome cheating in 2024? There's so much which should have been done by now to reduce the potential of Democrat cheating which hasn't been done yet.
I got your email and am hoping to make good use of the info. But I wonder...what reasons did YOU give the dude to vote for Trump? Any at all? Or did you reject the challenge on the false premise there are no reasons to list?
I didn’t because I’m not trying to preach the Trump gospel. I’m merely giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your skills of persuasion and command of the data to support voting for Trump.
Must of the comments were essentially “Biden is worse.”. I’m sure you’ve got better reasons than that.
Craig
Post a Comment