First, keep in mind Erickson was a NeverTrumper who came around. This suggests he's backsliding, perhaps thinking he can oppose Trump with a more "objective" sounding approach. Anyway...
"...it would be silly for Republicans to restore President Trump to office wherein he could only stay four years."
Why? He only stayed four years the first time and look how much good he accomplished. What makes you think he'd do any worse given another four regardless of it being interrupted by abject stupidity? Unless the GOP totally craps on their opportunity of having taken the House and maybe the Senate, too in '22, Trump would actually have...correction: should have...more support than the first time around.
"The 2028 primary would begin before the 2024 presidential cycle even concluded."
So what? That's really not much different from any other second term, but only in degrees. And I would submit that anyone vying for he nomination in '28 should be making noise, especially if it's to support Trump's good works and point out the flaws of the less than good. I would have no problem with this at all.
"It would also be silly for the GOP to put in office a man who’d be no younger than Joe Biden is now."
ONLY if he's as senile. Trump doesn't show any indication he's anywhere near to being what Biden was already during the basement campaign.
" The GOP has a remarkable bench with deep experience... Regardless of what you think about any of them individually, it would be a bit nuts to give up a potential eight years for any one of them for no more than four years for a second Trump term."
This assumes Trump getting four would inhibit any on his list from getting eight right afterward. Just because that isn't the trend doesn't mean it can't happen if Trump, and a GOP majority Congress, do really good work that the majority of Americans can't help but notice and want more of. Erickson's assuming a loss after Trump's second four years, which makes Erickson a loser...giving up before the game starts.
"In fact, though polling shows about sixty percent of Republicans really want a second Trump term, that number keeps declining."
Well, if true, then fine. It makes the whole thing moot if Trump's support declines enough. Of course, I haven't seen any of these polls to know how they're worded. Nor does Erickson link to any so that we can see what the hell he means.
He goes on to describe who's keeping Trump in the limelight. I don't much care what the Trump-hating lefty pundits say. And I've seen Trump interviewed by quite a few conservatives, so I don't know that Erickson is accurate with this bit. Two who have a good following are Mark Levin and Gregg Gutfeld. I believe Hannity's talked with him, too (I don't watch Hannity, so I can't say for sure). The point is that "Conservative news networks have moved on. Conservative talk shows have moved on." isn't really true. And here's another guy doing it...Erick Erickson.
"President Trump will always have a highly committed, very vocal, band of loyalists who will abide no other candidate."
President Trump will always have a highly committed, very vocal, band of NeverTrumpers who will abide no second term for him. But again, where's the poll which presents how many "Trump-or-no-one" loyalists there are? If he's running for the nomination, his supporters will vote for him. If there aren't enough by that time for him to win, I don't know that his supporters wouldn't side with whoever does. Indeed, I'm more confident there are fewer of these types then their opposites in the NeverTrumper ranks who did a lot to cost us the last election.
I understand that you're going to be all in on Trump regardless of the counter arguments advanced.
Personally, I find the potential 4 years v. 8 years compelling. What we can be pretty sure of is that there is little likelihood that a Trump running mate will be elected after him, and that Trump would endorse of campaign for anyone else who might follow him. Further, given Trump's divisiveness the likelihood that he'd be followed by another DFL POTUS seems high.
Obviously there's no guarantee of anyone getting 2 terms, but I'd rather go with someone who has the chance of 2, instead of Trump with only one.
Yes, Trump did some good things in one term, although the performance of his SCOTUS picks and the massive increase in debt so far look less good than one would have thought.
I understand that you're going to all in on denying Trump regardless of the facts advanced. He performed very well in the aggregate, and the scale tilted heavily toward the beneficial. Citing his few shortcomings (and really, his SCOTUS picks, while not great are still too new to write them off as failures...believe me, I hoped for better, too) only means he wasn't perfect. So performance wise, he's still a good choice despite those few missteps.
You really need to stop with the "all in" crap. I'm being objective here, not a shill for the Trumpster. That I found him less objectionable in light of his accomplishments is proof of that, not proof I'm Trump-or-nothing.
What we can be sure of is that if we take the House and/or Senate and they again waste the opportunity, electing any GOP candidate will be that much harder, and if Trump is the guy, their success will mean his successor can indeed be another GOP candidate. And if they perform as Trump has, the party will also have to boldly keep their accomplishments in the grill of the public so that they know why they're loving life for a change. Those like you like to believe Trump was his own worst enemy. The same can be said for the party as a whole. Indeed it has been because it's true. But like Trump, if they do good things (Trump did far more than "some"...do I really need to link to the list again?) and make sure no one forgets they did them, we'd keep control and American will be far closer to what it was meant to be than it has been in a long time. Trump was getting us there. With a 2022 victory in the midterms, we can stop the bleeding. We just need to support the cause and Trump if he is the nominee and stop pretending his past sex life and alleged business dealings matter against his accomplishments. I'm willing to support whomever is the nominee against the Dems. That's all that matters if the nominee is conservative.
It's not that I'm "all in on denying Trump", hell Dan thinks I'm a Trump supporter. It's more that I've looked at as much information as I can, and have reached two conclusions. One, I'm done with septuagenarians. Two, there are better options than Trump regardless of his age.
As you admitted, De Santis is a better option. I've mentioned several others, and Erickson mentions a few.
I know this goes against your narrative, but the reason why some conservatives couldn't hold their noses and vote for Trump was because of Trump. Similarly, given Trumps new, vocal pro vax stance, he's just alienating more conservatives.
Finally, it's over two years out from the election. Who knows who or what might change between now and then. To simply default to Trump this far out sounds like simple laziness. Why even have primaries? why not just anoint Trump now? Why have options? Why not start working to get rid of the 2 term limit on presidents? Trump for life!!
You, (much like Dan) confuse anything other than full on support (or hatred) of Trump as something other than choosing to evaluate the evidence and make a decision that I can live with.
I did indeed mention De Santis was a better option, and I even gave a reason for the opinion, which was basically that he was Trump without the baggage. That is to say that at this point, I believe...with some distinctions sure to come to the fore at some point...that he would govern in the same way as he does now, which is very much like Trump in terms of fearlessness and certitude of purpose. As to Erickson's list (with De Santis removed for clarity):
"Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Doug Ducey, Kristi Noem, and Mike Pence all have tremendous experience and all are younger than either President Trump or President Biden."
...one must analyze the careers and positions of each in order to determine if any of them would be a better choice. Experience and age don't make any of them "better" choices. I don't know of any Dem who would be superior to any of these listed possibilities, but that's not the issue here. (Out of this list, I really don't like Pence, though I'd vote for him if he won the nomination. He caved on a religious freedom bill as governor of Indiana, and he either caved or was unaware of his authority with regard to refusing to certify Electors from states...like Georgia...you dismissed their state election laws to act without legislative approval, making their slates illegitimate. Whether caving or ignorance...we can't have either these days.)
"I know this goes against your narrative, but the reason why some conservatives couldn't hold their noses and vote for Trump was because of Trump."
My "narrative" is that after four great years as president, that's a crap reason for rejecting him. It's not a principle which is superior to the principle that the nation needs the best at the helm, and he proved his value to the nation to such a degree that his re-election should have been a slam dunk (it was except that the election was stolen). I wonder how many of those conservatives chose to withhold their support did so believing he was going to win anyway, so it their vote didn't matter, which is reprehensible, too. My "narrative" is that Trump's personality quirks and lack of total perfection as president have no place in a serious consideration for president when weighed against his clearly beneficial first four years. Further proof is the entirety of 2021.
"Similarly, given Trumps new, vocal pro vax stance, he's just alienating more conservatives."
Frankly, while I admit I haven't sought out conservative opinion on this point, I don't know if there's anyone but you who believes his support for a product brought about through his efforts are of any concern since he's not spoken of mandating its use. Assuming there truly are such conservatives, it's a weak argument added to an already weak reasoning for rejecting him.
" To simply default to Trump this far out sounds like simple laziness."
Why do you keep suggesting I'm defaulting to Trump as if I wouldn't find another person more worthy of my vote? No one has even announced yet! I'm simply hoping to get a solid argument for why one shouldn't continue to support him. In other words, convince me he's not worthy. His age and personality flaws had no impact on this ability to do the job and get great things done. Why would they for another four years if nothing about his health changes in the meantime?
Options are fine. I want more of them. But unlike Dan's list of criteria for interpreting Scripture, having them doesn't mean they're worth a damn.
To be honest, way before I even heard of Trump, I was never keen on the idea of term limits for president. While I never would have been good with a third Obama term, or even a third GW Bush term, I'm far more concerned with the electorate than with whom they elect. The president is a reflection of the political intelligence of the people in general. It's never been lower than we saw in 2020 and 2021 is absolute proof and verification of that truism. At this point, I wouldn't waste time trying to overturn presidential term limits, but I'm dead set against Congressional term limits. I want people to educate themselves, pay attention, talk with each other. I never want to risk losing the services of a true servant of the people who has proven himself worthy of continued support, especially in times where such is needed for the sake of the nation.
"You, (much like Dan) confuse anything other than full on support (or hatred) of Trump as something other than choosing to evaluate the evidence and make a decision that I can live with."
At this point, you body of evidence is lacking as far as explaining your decision. That's all I'm looking for. Age and being Trump seems a bit less than I would have expected.
One more thing...the issue here is selecting someone other than Trump to run for the GOP nomination, right? I reiterate that I'm not opposed to someone else if there's someone who I think would do a better job...or even just as good a job...than the guy who has already proven himself to be effective in doing good work on our behalf. Given all Trump faced while on his way to getting so much good stuff done, who do you think would do as well? You suggest De Santis might not try because he wouldn't want to deal with Trump trash-talking him (and I disagree he'd care). But if that's true, and a possibility with others you might have on your list of possibles, how are they going to deal with all the crap Trump faced?
But beyond that, what if Trump wins the primary again?? Will you support him against whatever Dem is put up against him? Which Dem do you think won't bring about harm...even if not as badly as Biden has already...that justifies NOT voting for president in such a scenario? Most of those 75 million who voted for Trump did so because they were happy with his results. Results is all that matters. I'm willing to suffer a less than perfect person who gets things done for four to eight years if the choice is again between such a person and a Dem who won't make America better.
"Why do you keep suggesting I'm defaulting to Trump as if I wouldn't find another person more worthy of my vote?"
Because you constantly circle back to Trump being the best candidate and the one we should be voting for in 2024.
As to Trump's term being "great", I'm not buying it. His SCOTUS nominees have been mediocre at best, his pre COVID spending spree was ridiculous, he did little (beyond some sections of a wall) about long term immigration reform, he blew the chance to get an actual infrastructure bill, he managed to piss of people in both parties, etc. Yes the economy was going very well (pre COVID) as was employment, which were good. But as far as substantive policy, at this point I'd say C+.
The reason my "body of evidence" isn't fully formed is that it's January of 2022, and we have a mid term to get through before the 2024 presidential campaign even starts. Maybe the problem is trying to set Trump up as the only option, before we even start the campaign.
Yes, being young and not Trump seems like an excellent place to start as far as I'm concerned.
No, I will not support Trump if he wins the nomination. Once I get to the polling place, I might hold my nose and vote for him, but I won't pretend like he's some sort of white night riding to save the day.
"Because you constantly circle back to Trump being the best candidate and the one we should be voting for in 2024."
Actually, I'm circling back to the fact he was very effective in improving things for all Americans, as well as the fact you haven't offered anyone as clearly a better choice (except De Santis who suggests he's not running). I'm also concerned about the notion that Trump would be unacceptable after four years of success in the face of opposition from political opponents of both parties. Based on all that's gone wrong since so many geniuses rejected him in 2020, and how much worse things are now as a result, an objective person might wonder if not backing him is the best plan.
Think of it this way: we already know he's capable and can stand the heat. But if Biden and his group of certified morons continue on their current path, the state of the nation will be in especially dire straights. By that time, it will be far more obvious which party brought us there. If Trump becomes president and fails to turn it around, it will still be a Dem disaster, not a GOP disaster. The GOP would still have a shot to win the White House to continue the cleanup Trump couldn't get done...a cleanup which wouldn't have been necessary if not for the aforementioned geniuses.
As to Trump's term being "great", you don't have to buy it. It's free.
With regard to his SCOTUS nominees, I don't view them as Scalia clones, but I think overall...in the aggregate...they've been a bit better than merely "mediocre", but why split hairs. One can look to most of their work on Wiki since they became SCOTUS justices and see they've done fairly good, if not perfect, work. While I don't know how Trump came to choose these three particular people for the job, the longest serving of the three has only been on the job for less than five years. I think it's a bit too early to regard them as one can Justice Roberts.
I've mentioned his spending issue previously and my objection to it. As to immigration issues, he's done far better than you seem to believe:
No. He did quite a bit, and again, in the face of Dem and some GOP obstruction. As to the people he pissed off, I'd say he pissed off the right people mostly. And a C+ on the economy? Good gosh!
Again, I've not set Trump as the only option. But YOU'VE set him as not an option at all and that's just foolish as hell. Indeed, between the two of us, I believe I'm the more objective on the topic. I've stated I hope someone else stands out as clearly worthy of the great challenge which will surely be faced by whomever. De Santis could change his mind in a couple of years. And the midterms will have a lot to do with how bad it will or won't get, and thus make more of a difference than the typical midterm elections of years past. So cut the crap about me being a Trump-or-no one guy. That's simply not the case.
"No, I will not support Trump if he wins the nomination. Once I get to the polling place, I might hold my nose and vote for him, but I won't pretend like he's some sort of white night riding to save the day."
Well, if you vote for him, then you're supporting him. I don't get this paragraph. In the meantime, I'm not pretending a damned thing. I'm acting on facts and evidence, which all point to Trump as being worthy of serious consideration at the very least, regardless of his age or manner.
The author makes some great points for consideration during the primaries, though aside from naming De Santis, gives no other options who would satisfy the criteria he points out as important...and with which I agree. I would respond to it in the following manner:
1. "Navigating" the Florida swamp is not the same as draining it, and that seems a good description of Trump's presidency. He "navigated" the swamp at the very least in order to have accomplish what he did.
2. Might Trump be more fired up to drain rather than navigate if he can secure a second chance? If he manages again to win enough support to win the nomination, it would be a moot point for me as I'd have to vote for him in the general over Biden or whomever the Dems put up.
The article suggests that Trump's best move would be to drain his own camp of those who didn't do that much good. A Scott Atlas from the beginning would be been better than a long-time impotent bureaucrat like Anthony Fauci, and I hope that lesson has been learned by the Donald. A most difficult thing to gauge before he acts to prove or disprove it.
14 comments:
No...not all that good an explanation at all.
First, keep in mind Erickson was a NeverTrumper who came around. This suggests he's backsliding, perhaps thinking he can oppose Trump with a more "objective" sounding approach. Anyway...
"...it would be silly for Republicans to restore President Trump to office wherein he could only stay four years."
Why? He only stayed four years the first time and look how much good he accomplished. What makes you think he'd do any worse given another four regardless of it being interrupted by abject stupidity? Unless the GOP totally craps on their opportunity of having taken the House and maybe the Senate, too in '22, Trump would actually have...correction: should have...more support than the first time around.
"The 2028 primary would begin before the 2024 presidential cycle even concluded."
So what? That's really not much different from any other second term, but only in degrees. And I would submit that anyone vying for he nomination in '28 should be making noise, especially if it's to support Trump's good works and point out the flaws of the less than good. I would have no problem with this at all.
"It would also be silly for the GOP to put in office a man who’d be no younger than Joe Biden is now."
ONLY if he's as senile. Trump doesn't show any indication he's anywhere near to being what Biden was already during the basement campaign.
" The GOP has a remarkable bench with deep experience... Regardless of what you think about any of them individually, it would be a bit nuts to give up a potential eight years for any one of them for no more than four years for a second Trump term."
This assumes Trump getting four would inhibit any on his list from getting eight right afterward. Just because that isn't the trend doesn't mean it can't happen if Trump, and a GOP majority Congress, do really good work that the majority of Americans can't help but notice and want more of. Erickson's assuming a loss after Trump's second four years, which makes Erickson a loser...giving up before the game starts.
"In fact, though polling shows about sixty percent of Republicans really want a second Trump term, that number keeps declining."
Well, if true, then fine. It makes the whole thing moot if Trump's support declines enough. Of course, I haven't seen any of these polls to know how they're worded. Nor does Erickson link to any so that we can see what the hell he means.
He goes on to describe who's keeping Trump in the limelight. I don't much care what the Trump-hating lefty pundits say. And I've seen Trump interviewed by quite a few conservatives, so I don't know that Erickson is accurate with this bit. Two who have a good following are Mark Levin and Gregg Gutfeld. I believe Hannity's talked with him, too (I don't watch Hannity, so I can't say for sure). The point is that "Conservative news networks have moved on. Conservative talk shows have moved on." isn't really true. And here's another guy doing it...Erick Erickson.
"President Trump will always have a highly committed, very vocal, band of loyalists who will abide no other candidate."
President Trump will always have a highly committed, very vocal, band of NeverTrumpers who will abide no second term for him. But again, where's the poll which presents how many "Trump-or-no-one" loyalists there are? If he's running for the nomination, his supporters will vote for him. If there aren't enough by that time for him to win, I don't know that his supporters wouldn't side with whoever does. Indeed, I'm more confident there are fewer of these types then their opposites in the NeverTrumper ranks who did a lot to cost us the last election.
I understand that you're going to be all in on Trump regardless of the counter arguments advanced.
Personally, I find the potential 4 years v. 8 years compelling. What we can be pretty sure of is that there is little likelihood that a Trump running mate will be elected after him, and that Trump would endorse of campaign for anyone else who might follow him. Further, given Trump's divisiveness the likelihood that he'd be followed by another DFL POTUS seems high.
Obviously there's no guarantee of anyone getting 2 terms, but I'd rather go with someone who has the chance of 2, instead of Trump with only one.
Yes, Trump did some good things in one term, although the performance of his SCOTUS picks and the massive increase in debt so far look less good than one would have thought.
I understand that you're going to all in on denying Trump regardless of the facts advanced. He performed very well in the aggregate, and the scale tilted heavily toward the beneficial. Citing his few shortcomings (and really, his SCOTUS picks, while not great are still too new to write them off as failures...believe me, I hoped for better, too) only means he wasn't perfect. So performance wise, he's still a good choice despite those few missteps.
You really need to stop with the "all in" crap. I'm being objective here, not a shill for the Trumpster. That I found him less objectionable in light of his accomplishments is proof of that, not proof I'm Trump-or-nothing.
What we can be sure of is that if we take the House and/or Senate and they again waste the opportunity, electing any GOP candidate will be that much harder, and if Trump is the guy, their success will mean his successor can indeed be another GOP candidate. And if they perform as Trump has, the party will also have to boldly keep their accomplishments in the grill of the public so that they know why they're loving life for a change. Those like you like to believe Trump was his own worst enemy. The same can be said for the party as a whole. Indeed it has been because it's true. But like Trump, if they do good things (Trump did far more than "some"...do I really need to link to the list again?) and make sure no one forgets they did them, we'd keep control and American will be far closer to what it was meant to be than it has been in a long time. Trump was getting us there. With a 2022 victory in the midterms, we can stop the bleeding. We just need to support the cause and Trump if he is the nominee and stop pretending his past sex life and alleged business dealings matter against his accomplishments. I'm willing to support whomever is the nominee against the Dems. That's all that matters if the nominee is conservative.
It's not that I'm "all in on denying Trump", hell Dan thinks I'm a Trump supporter. It's more that I've looked at as much information as I can, and have reached two conclusions. One, I'm done with septuagenarians. Two, there are better options than Trump regardless of his age.
Who are they and what makes them better?
As you admitted, De Santis is a better option. I've mentioned several others, and Erickson mentions a few.
I know this goes against your narrative, but the reason why some conservatives couldn't hold their noses and vote for Trump was because of Trump. Similarly, given Trumps new, vocal pro vax stance, he's just alienating more conservatives.
Finally, it's over two years out from the election. Who knows who or what might change between now and then. To simply default to Trump this far out sounds like simple laziness. Why even have primaries? why not just anoint Trump now? Why have options? Why not start working to get rid of the 2 term limit on presidents? Trump for life!!
You, (much like Dan) confuse anything other than full on support (or hatred) of Trump as something other than choosing to evaluate the evidence and make a decision that I can live with.
I did indeed mention De Santis was a better option, and I even gave a reason for the opinion, which was basically that he was Trump without the baggage. That is to say that at this point, I believe...with some distinctions sure to come to the fore at some point...that he would govern in the same way as he does now, which is very much like Trump in terms of fearlessness and certitude of purpose. As to Erickson's list (with De Santis removed for clarity):
"Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Doug Ducey, Kristi Noem, and Mike Pence all have tremendous experience and all are younger than either President Trump or President Biden."
...one must analyze the careers and positions of each in order to determine if any of them would be a better choice. Experience and age don't make any of them "better" choices. I don't know of any Dem who would be superior to any of these listed possibilities, but that's not the issue here. (Out of this list, I really don't like Pence, though I'd vote for him if he won the nomination. He caved on a religious freedom bill as governor of Indiana, and he either caved or was unaware of his authority with regard to refusing to certify Electors from states...like Georgia...you dismissed their state election laws to act without legislative approval, making their slates illegitimate. Whether caving or ignorance...we can't have either these days.)
"I know this goes against your narrative, but the reason why some conservatives couldn't hold their noses and vote for Trump was because of Trump."
My "narrative" is that after four great years as president, that's a crap reason for rejecting him. It's not a principle which is superior to the principle that the nation needs the best at the helm, and he proved his value to the nation to such a degree that his re-election should have been a slam dunk (it was except that the election was stolen). I wonder how many of those conservatives chose to withhold their support did so believing he was going to win anyway, so it their vote didn't matter, which is reprehensible, too. My "narrative" is that Trump's personality quirks and lack of total perfection as president have no place in a serious consideration for president when weighed against his clearly beneficial first four years. Further proof is the entirety of 2021.
"Similarly, given Trumps new, vocal pro vax stance, he's just alienating more conservatives."
Frankly, while I admit I haven't sought out conservative opinion on this point, I don't know if there's anyone but you who believes his support for a product brought about through his efforts are of any concern since he's not spoken of mandating its use. Assuming there truly are such conservatives, it's a weak argument added to an already weak reasoning for rejecting him.
" To simply default to Trump this far out sounds like simple laziness."
Why do you keep suggesting I'm defaulting to Trump as if I wouldn't find another person more worthy of my vote? No one has even announced yet! I'm simply hoping to get a solid argument for why one shouldn't continue to support him. In other words, convince me he's not worthy. His age and personality flaws had no impact on this ability to do the job and get great things done. Why would they for another four years if nothing about his health changes in the meantime?
Options are fine. I want more of them. But unlike Dan's list of criteria for interpreting Scripture, having them doesn't mean they're worth a damn.
To be honest, way before I even heard of Trump, I was never keen on the idea of term limits for president. While I never would have been good with a third Obama term, or even a third GW Bush term, I'm far more concerned with the electorate than with whom they elect. The president is a reflection of the political intelligence of the people in general. It's never been lower than we saw in 2020 and 2021 is absolute proof and verification of that truism. At this point, I wouldn't waste time trying to overturn presidential term limits, but I'm dead set against Congressional term limits. I want people to educate themselves, pay attention, talk with each other. I never want to risk losing the services of a true servant of the people who has proven himself worthy of continued support, especially in times where such is needed for the sake of the nation.
"You, (much like Dan) confuse anything other than full on support (or hatred) of Trump as something other than choosing to evaluate the evidence and make a decision that I can live with."
At this point, you body of evidence is lacking as far as explaining your decision. That's all I'm looking for. Age and being Trump seems a bit less than I would have expected.
One more thing...the issue here is selecting someone other than Trump to run for the GOP nomination, right? I reiterate that I'm not opposed to someone else if there's someone who I think would do a better job...or even just as good a job...than the guy who has already proven himself to be effective in doing good work on our behalf. Given all Trump faced while on his way to getting so much good stuff done, who do you think would do as well? You suggest De Santis might not try because he wouldn't want to deal with Trump trash-talking him (and I disagree he'd care). But if that's true, and a possibility with others you might have on your list of possibles, how are they going to deal with all the crap Trump faced?
But beyond that, what if Trump wins the primary again?? Will you support him against whatever Dem is put up against him? Which Dem do you think won't bring about harm...even if not as badly as Biden has already...that justifies NOT voting for president in such a scenario? Most of those 75 million who voted for Trump did so because they were happy with his results. Results is all that matters. I'm willing to suffer a less than perfect person who gets things done for four to eight years if the choice is again between such a person and a Dem who won't make America better.
"Why do you keep suggesting I'm defaulting to Trump as if I wouldn't find another person more worthy of my vote?"
Because you constantly circle back to Trump being the best candidate and the one we should be voting for in 2024.
As to Trump's term being "great", I'm not buying it. His SCOTUS nominees have been mediocre at best, his pre COVID spending spree was ridiculous, he did little (beyond some sections of a wall) about long term immigration reform, he blew the chance to get an actual infrastructure bill, he managed to piss of people in both parties, etc. Yes the economy was going very well (pre COVID) as was employment, which were good. But as far as substantive policy, at this point I'd say C+.
The reason my "body of evidence" isn't fully formed is that it's January of 2022, and we have a mid term to get through before the 2024 presidential campaign even starts. Maybe the problem is trying to set Trump up as the only option, before we even start the campaign.
Yes, being young and not Trump seems like an excellent place to start as far as I'm concerned.
No, I will not support Trump if he wins the nomination. Once I get to the polling place, I might hold my nose and vote for him, but I won't pretend like he's some sort of white night riding to save the day.
"Because you constantly circle back to Trump being the best candidate and the one we should be voting for in 2024."
Actually, I'm circling back to the fact he was very effective in improving things for all Americans, as well as the fact you haven't offered anyone as clearly a better choice (except De Santis who suggests he's not running). I'm also concerned about the notion that Trump would be unacceptable after four years of success in the face of opposition from political opponents of both parties. Based on all that's gone wrong since so many geniuses rejected him in 2020, and how much worse things are now as a result, an objective person might wonder if not backing him is the best plan.
Think of it this way: we already know he's capable and can stand the heat. But if Biden and his group of certified morons continue on their current path, the state of the nation will be in especially dire straights. By that time, it will be far more obvious which party brought us there. If Trump becomes president and fails to turn it around, it will still be a Dem disaster, not a GOP disaster. The GOP would still have a shot to win the White House to continue the cleanup Trump couldn't get done...a cleanup which wouldn't have been necessary if not for the aforementioned geniuses.
More coming....
As to Trump's term being "great", you don't have to buy it. It's free.
With regard to his SCOTUS nominees, I don't view them as Scalia clones, but I think overall...in the aggregate...they've been a bit better than merely "mediocre", but why split hairs. One can look to most of their work on Wiki since they became SCOTUS justices and see they've done fairly good, if not perfect, work. While I don't know how Trump came to choose these three particular people for the job, the longest serving of the three has only been on the job for less than five years. I think it's a bit too early to regard them as one can Justice Roberts.
I've mentioned his spending issue previously and my objection to it. As to immigration issues, he's done far better than you seem to believe:
https://www.fairus.org/issue/presidential-administration/trump-administration-immigration-accomplishments
https://dailysurge.com/2020/11/trumps-success-improving-americas-immigration-situation-could-be-overturned-quickly/
https://thehornnews.com/incredible-trump-immigration-huge-success/
https://nypost.com/2019/11/07/trumps-unheralded-border-success/
The following is from the Trump-loving National Review (though I don't think the author is a NeverTrumper like most of their writers):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/america-turns-the-corner-at-last/
No. He did quite a bit, and again, in the face of Dem and some GOP obstruction. As to the people he pissed off, I'd say he pissed off the right people mostly. And a C+ on the economy? Good gosh!
Again, I've not set Trump as the only option. But YOU'VE set him as not an option at all and that's just foolish as hell. Indeed, between the two of us, I believe I'm the more objective on the topic. I've stated I hope someone else stands out as clearly worthy of the great challenge which will surely be faced by whomever. De Santis could change his mind in a couple of years. And the midterms will have a lot to do with how bad it will or won't get, and thus make more of a difference than the typical midterm elections of years past. So cut the crap about me being a Trump-or-no one guy. That's simply not the case.
"No, I will not support Trump if he wins the nomination. Once I get to the polling place, I might hold my nose and vote for him, but I won't pretend like he's some sort of white night riding to save the day."
Well, if you vote for him, then you're supporting him. I don't get this paragraph. In the meantime, I'm not pretending a damned thing. I'm acting on facts and evidence, which all point to Trump as being worthy of serious consideration at the very least, regardless of his age or manner.
Here's something I think you'll find worth considering:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/02/why_donald_trump_should_not_be_the_republican_nominee.html
The author makes some great points for consideration during the primaries, though aside from naming De Santis, gives no other options who would satisfy the criteria he points out as important...and with which I agree. I would respond to it in the following manner:
1. "Navigating" the Florida swamp is not the same as draining it, and that seems a good description of Trump's presidency. He "navigated" the swamp at the very least in order to have accomplish what he did.
2. Might Trump be more fired up to drain rather than navigate if he can secure a second chance? If he manages again to win enough support to win the nomination, it would be a moot point for me as I'd have to vote for him in the general over Biden or whomever the Dems put up.
The article suggests that Trump's best move would be to drain his own camp of those who didn't do that much good. A Scott Atlas from the beginning would be been better than a long-time impotent bureaucrat like Anthony Fauci, and I hope that lesson has been learned by the Donald. A most difficult thing to gauge before he acts to prove or disprove it.
Post a Comment