Whether it's in conversations on these here blogs or in other platforms, such as Facebook, Trump-haters from the left and right continue to spend inordinate amount of time highlighting insignificant negatives about Donald Trump, all the while ignoring the very significant failures of those who have been in charge at all levels of American government. Here, we see this manifested in the hatefulness of Dan Trabue, and incredibly stupid person who's presence here is totally for entertainment purposes, as well as to provide an example of incredibly stupid "progressive christians" look like.
So while such morons make every effort to scrape the barrel to uncover even more items which they can present as examples of how foolish it is to support Donald Trump for president, they say absolutely nothing about the many failures and crimes of those they support as more "decent" and "intelligent" and overall better for the nation than that evil Trump could ever be. But that's OK, because the harm caused by the people the Dan Trabues of the nation prefer are many indeed but can be ignored and blamed on others. What follows is just a taste:
This is from the moron Dems in Minneapolis:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/minneapolis_helps_biden_sabotage_minneapolis.html
This idiocy is similar to the Fat Bastard JB Pritzker's SAFE-T Act, which handcuffs cops instead of criminals. But oh gosh! Trump says mean things!
Of course, the Cali wild fires are far worse than they should be...regardless of how strong the Santa Ana winds blow...because of Dem policies:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/maybe_california_politicians_should_listen_to_trump_instead_of_seeking_to_trump_proof_the_state.html
Oh, but we MUST "Trump proof" the state, which means, work to prevent compliance with rational and legitimate federal policies regarding immigration....cuz Trump hates brown people, or something! Here's more fire related Dem nonsense:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/firestorm_of_incompetence_in_los_angeles_water_company_admits_their_big_reservoir_to_fight_fires_was_bone_dry.html
Hey! Let's not feed our troops! We're too busy changing the names of military facilities because of "racism":
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/does_dei_require_starving_our_troops.html
Here's but one example of a lefty US Attorney failing to do what is truly important and of most benefit to the people he was put in office to serve:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/who_is_matthew_graves.html
Add to that asshole's name is other lefty assholes like Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis and many others who think the safety of the public can freakin' wait while they try to push their bullshit charges against Trump and his supporters.
The above is not even enough to consider a legitimate short list of examples of the failures and stupidity of the Democrat Party, who somehow manage to continue drawing votes from the public. Somehow Trump supporters are "conned". Only abject morons would say so.
And of course, no list would be complete without detailing the many examples of criminality, stupidity and the like from the Joe Biden administration...the guy one particular dumbass continues to insist is a better, more decent person than Donald Trump. But there are so many, a separate post is necessary to adequately cover them all.
Yet, we keep hearing all manner of attempts to cast aspersions on Trump, his supporters, the GOP and conservatism, despite there being no parallel with regard to the constant dereliction of duty, the harm and suffering resulting from their policies and the massive costs for all of it with no beneficial return on that investment of our tax dollars. I no longer need to submit any caveats or disclaimers conceding right-wing mistakes and overspending. There's simply not enough of them to match the outright harm done by left-of-center politicians and their parties. As such, I can weather all the lies and accusations and allegations by the stupid...those like Dan and some others I confront on social media. Compare any confirmation hearing wherein the nominee is either a Dem or a Repub...such as what is taking place now with Trump's cabinet nominees. The behavior of the Dems is unique unto them, but not in any way honest. People like Hegseth or Bondi might stumble or stutter (though neither really did from what I've seen so far) because like we here at the blogs when questioned by Dan, they encounter truly stupid and/or dishonest questions. Conversely, when one watches a Dem nominee for a post being questioned by GOP Senators or Congresspeople, they stutter and stumble because they're confronting truths about the they wish wasn't made public.
The left...in all their forms...are a blight on the nation, a clear and present danger to our future. Only dumbasses pretend Trump's a threat. They play that game regardless of who the GOP figure is. And the Dem voters...the Trump-hating fakes, like Dan...pretend it's our side who are the victims of a con.
Here's more of what morons like Dan support and enable by their wanton stupidity:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/blue_city_genius_defunding_the_firefighters_in_los_angeles.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/01/take_away_healthcare_to_improve_health_care.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/01/environmental_marxism.html
(Wow! Talk about being "conned"!)
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/01/illegal_immigration_is_killing_small_towns.html
(Only a "progressive" would buy into this illegal immigration scam!)
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/01/a_cascade_of_failures_in_california.html
(Not sure if I posted this one already, but it's such a repugnant description of the repugnant party repugnant people like Dan have conned themselves into believing are "decent" people!)
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/after_60_minutes_interview_fbi_director_christopher_wray_reminds_why_fbi_credibility_is_in_shambles.html
(Added this day, 1/19/25 because evidence of the Dem con job continues to be exposed.)
I could do this all day, and were a mental midget like Dan attempt to match me case for case, he'd soon be overwhelmed beyond any possibility his wildest footstomping tantrums could mitigate.
Asshats like Dan can accuse and criticize Trump and the GOP all they like. It's no more than petulant admission of how they've allowed themselves to be conned by the worst people in American politics, and the many harmful consequences of that con are being endured by all Americans.
29 comments:
Craig. Really, dude. That won't shut up his critics. They'll more than likely double down on misrepresenting reality in order to continue demonizing him. It's what they do. Note our very own Dan "TDS Is My Middle Name" Trabue. When has he shut up about Trump in response to the many positive consequences of his many effective policies during Trump's first term? Answer: Never. He's too obsessed with grabbing women by the crotch.
OK, I'll rephrase. He has the opportunity to shut up those of his critics that will actually look at results and reality.
As far as the rest, he'll have the opportunity to demonstrate, with actual data, they they are wrong. It won't stop the idiots from making fools of themselves, but it will likely make some of their followers question things and erode support from those who live in a partisan fantasy world.
FYI, did you not read what I said in my first comment? I was pretty clear that I wasn't suggesting that he'd shut up all of his critics.
Regardless of any of this, Trump has an incredible opportunity to focus on making the main things the main things and to get them done. Obviously I want him to do just that. Pick the most important things and get them done (or at least well started). It's not an unrealistic hope.
"OK, I'll rephrase. He has the opportunity to shut up those of his critics that will actually look at results and reality."
That's better, and ordinarily it would've been the most logically inferred understanding. But then, Trump has lots of critics, so...
"As far as the rest, he'll have the opportunity to demonstrate, with actual data, they they are wrong. It won't stop the idiots from making fools of themselves, but it will likely make some of their followers question things and erode support from those who live in a partisan fantasy world."
Well, that's actually happened. First, with yours truly, who only voted for him to prevent Hillary from winning. His work in the first year alone changed my mind about him. JD Vance is another of the same kind (though I didn't go along with the BS demonization as he admits to having done). Now we see people a number of others flipping to his side, though the reasons might be more selfish for some of them.
"Obviously I want him to do just that. Pick the most important things and get them done (or at least well started). It's not an unrealistic hope."
I think it's most likely. It certainly was the first time around. But so long as he's not judged solely on what he didn't do or accomplish, as if there's not a long list of what he did do and accomplish (like last time), he will be elevated even by some of Dan's favored lefty historians. How could he not be? (Really a rhetorical question).
It happened for a couple of years pre COVID, but it's now 6 years later. He's got a chance to do what he didn't/couldn't do the first time, and then some. He has an opportunity to continue to move people away from the left, as long as he does what he says he'd do. It's pretty simple.
With anyone, in any job, the list of what they did do must be balanced against what they did not do to accurately evaluate their performance.
Well, he must only concern himself with doing his duty as president as he understands it. We who voted for him agree with his understanding or we wouldn't have voted for him. He proved himself the first time and has given no reason to suspect he won't strive to achieve the goal of a better nation. His EOs alone have demonstrated he's heading in that direction and we can only pray that upon the achievement of each nation improving goal, more critics will realize their opposition was unjustified. And THAT depends upon how completely TDS has metastasized in a given critic.
As to your last, this is the problem with little Danny. He is unwilling to weigh all aspects of a person's record in determining who he chooses to praise. My evaluations are based on that very concept, along with the positive/negative impact of actions taken and not taken. Happy talk is not a criteria for such evaluations, but only results are.
The problem is whether or not striving is enough to confer success on anyone. Like it or not, if Trump (really any POTUS) fails to deliver on his promises, it will likely result in the GOP losing the office in 2028. Trump (again, any president) should be trying to achieve so much that it becomes almost automatic that his GOP successor will be elected so the successful policies continue.
Again, heading in the direction, but failing to deliver is not enough to set the table for Vance/DeSantis/? in 2028. He (again, any POTUS) has to actually improve things, not just claim moral victories. This is part of what happened to Biden with his "infrastructure bill". Because they didn't have projects ready to start, and because their own regulations slowed the process, they had nothing tangible to show for the billions of dollars spent. It doesn't matter if they set the table for the rest of the EV charging stations, what matters is that they spent billions and only built 5.
I know you think this is some sort of attack on Trump, yet it is exactly the opposite. It's me expecting Trump to do what he said, achieve the results he promised (or be well on the way to doing so), and having an actual victory instead of a moral victory.
Yes, Dan tends to overemphasize that which he finds to be positive in his folx while under emphasizing or ignoring that which is negative. He then does exactly the opposite for his enemies. The notion of praising someone like Trump for doing something good is completely foreign to Dan, while you and I will absolutely give credit to a DFL president when they do something good.
Results should be the only criteria. It's up to Trump to produce them.
Just to be clear, Craig...I never intended to imply that striving alone is good enough to judge a presidency. Results are what matters. But to strive toward beneficial results even if one fails to achieve can't simply be written off. It can be noted what a president's intentions were and then discuss why he failed. Carter might have had what he thought were good intentions, and I would say that the results would likely not be good at all. Without getting deep in the weeds, how much "good intentions" motivated policy which led to gas lines and rising inflation and unemployment, etc?
Conversely, I regard most of Trump's intentions to be beneficial and as we learned, most people would not have gotten as much done in the face of so much obstruction and distraction as he faced the first time around. The intentions were good and the results would have been good had he been completely denied the ability to see it all through. Fortunately, he was successful.
But it still comes down to results and that's what I expect from every elected official: positive and beneficial results.
I also agree, therefore, that Pyrrhic victories don't butter the toast.
"I never intended to imply that striving alone is good enough to judge a presidency"
That's good to know.
" It can be noted what a president's intentions were and then discuss why he failed."
Obviously, yet failure is failure. In the case of Trump, because he's a one term president at this point, failure (for whatever reason) could very well doom the chances for 8 years of Vance or De Santis as president. So, in this case, the potential costs of failure could be huge.
If "good intentions" don't matter, then who cares about Trump's? Why does it matter? Why not just focus on results without getting bogged down in intentions. Hell, I have no doubt that Hitler had "good intentions" (from his subjective point of view) for Germany and Germans. Unfortunately, his actions to benefit Germany/Germans caused problems for everyone else.
Clearly I should have been more specific. I mentioned "intentions" in reference to comparisons between my support for Trump and Dan's support for Carter. In judging presidents, intentions matter as well...to the extent we are accurately aware of those intentions. It's easy to do if the intentions of proposed actions or actions taken are expressed outright. Not as easy if they aren't. The actions proposed or taken can imply intentions in some cases and as regards actions proposed, expressed or implied intentions can be important in responding to the proposal.
A fairly obvious example was Obamacare. We knew it was intended to push us toward a more socialist, government run health care system and the result of it after being imposed upon us was abject failure and increased costs. In both cases, it results in a negative judgement of Obama's presidency with regard to this specific initiative added to his ledger. But it didn't need to have been imposed upon us to judge it negatively, given the socialist nature of the proposal.
Conversely, a more conservative politician would be more likely to propose a free market form of health care plan, which based on economy history can be judged as a positive, and no doubt the results would add to that judgement.
But overall, what matters most is results. By this measure, Carter, Obama and Biden totally sucked as presidents. Trump scores much higher.
Clarity is good, especially in this particular forum. I'd argue that every single president in the history of the US has gone into office with good intentions. Truman had good intentions when he decided to end the war with Japan.
If, as you say, that presidents are judged only by accomplishment, then that's a perfectly appropriate metric to judge. But once you start making excuses for lack of accomplishment, failure, or otherwise poor performance, by bringing in intentions you've fundamentally changed your metric.
I'd argue that P-BO's intention with the ACA was good, based on his worldview and political leanings. It's impossible to judge other's intentions out of the context of their belief system.
If results are the only metric, then I'd expect to never hear you refer to Trump's intentions if/when he fails to achieve one of his goals.
Good intentions are subjective of course. If Obama though socializing our health care system was "good" intention, that doesn't make it one in reality. We have plenty of evidence against the concept of socialized medicine as we now have evidence of the negative impact of ACA. Thus, what Obama himself may have suggested in terms of ACA being a net positive, ACA itself couldn't possibly ever have been because it's socialist in nature.
So, when I speak of intentions, I can readily opposed the intentions of an outright communist or islamist or nazi because regardless of the commie, muslim or nazi believing their proposals are good for us, communism, islam and nazism have long been proven detrimental to a severe degree. Thus, the intention of imposing any of those three are would justify my judgement of the "leader" proposing as a bad president. I wouldn't need to have those bad policies actually enacted for that to be true.
In a similar manner, judging the average GOP presidential candidate against the average Dem candidate reveals similar understandings of what would be good for the nation. I can't think of too many (if any) policy proposals by any Dem candidate for president I regarded as especially beneficial, and certainly not enough of them to overwhelm all the usual bad proposals typical of that party.
So, with all that in mind, let's pretend that Trump was unable to overcome all the obstruction he faced and thus accomplished absolutely none of his campaign promises...nothing good came of his presidency because of it. The only way we can really judge his presidency must include the fact that he was constantly obstructed. His intentions were good, not because he believed they were, but because as they were presented, we could agree they were, especially were proposals mirrored that which historically benefited us.
Or look at it this way:
Trump's president because his promises were appealing, but a threat to the power of the Dems and establishment RINOs. So they prevent him from enacting any of his policy proposals by tying him up and locking him in a closet.
Biden's president because Trump haters found ways to corrupt the election in order that it would appear that Biden had more support. But knowing what a clusterf**k he's proven himself to be over fifty years in government, and how ineffective and detrimental leftist policies would be, he's prevented from acting by being tied up and locked in a closet.
We can still judge each of these guys by virtue of what they intended to do, which is what I meant by "judging their intentions", not that they believe their intended actions were worth a shit.
Here's another:
Trump intended to implement the Remain in Mexico policy, which was a good idea.
Biden intended to end the Remain in Mexico policy, which is incredibly Trabue...uh...I mean, stupid.
When I judge a president, it's first what was accomplished (and whether I agree with it and can see the benefits of it) as well as what he hoped to accomplish but couldn't for whatever reason.
I would add this as well: if a president's beneficial accomplishments were the result of having the support of Congress and the SCOTUS, I'd rank him higher than if he only got things done by EO. It would demonstrate he was a great statesman as well.
But it still comes down to results, which is why Dan's favored presidential rankings are crap. They don't ever speak to results of policies. If they did, they couldn't rank Trump as low as they did, except by being Trump-haters.
So even if Trump fails, it would be clear to see what he intended to do, judge what he intended to do and thus judge him for intending to do that which is beneficial. And I have an easy example: he intended to build the wall on our southern border. He was unable to build it entirely. His intentions were clearly good ones and shows his intellectual superiority, despite haters obstructing his plans.
All of that is fine. It's just adding additional layers of success to results which was your original criteria.
Not so. As I reread my own comments, it's pretty clear I put results as of most importance, and certainly with regard to judging success of a presidency. Judging intentions, or the striving toward a particular goal I regard as worthy, is only to judge the character of the person compared to another someone like Dan might favor, not a measure of success. In other words, I was quite specific in the distinctions between the two, though apparently not as clearly as I had intended. I apologize for the confusion.
"Results are what matters."
"But it still comes down to results and that's what I expect from every elected official: positive and beneficial results."
Or...
"it's pretty clear I put results as of most importance,"
If you say so.
You seem to be doubting me in some way regarding what I said. Where are you finding it difficult to understand what is quite clear as regards my position here? I've drawn clear distinction between what matters most when judging one president against another, versus that which matters less while also being worthy of consideration.
"Results" refers to the impact of actions taken or not taken by a president.
"Intention" refers to what a president hopes to accomplish as it relates to what I and most conservatives expect to see, regardless of whether or not he succeeds in accomplishing those goals.
Most of the results from Trump's actions, including those he taking now, have been absolutely beneficial. Most of the results from Biden's actions have sucked and have caused much harm and suffering. Clearly, every honest person judges Trump to be far and away the better president.
Knowing what Trump intends (to the extent I'm able to know) will result in positive results. Knowing what Dem like Biden intends will result in that which sucks and causes much harm and suffering. Even by this measure, every honest person judges Trump to be far and away the better president.
Between actual results and intelligent intentions, it is results which weighs more heavily in judging a president as better than another.
If you're still somehow having a problem with this simple set of criteria, just tell what that problem is and perhaps I can be even more clarifying. I doubt it, given how obvious it is, but I can try.
Not doubting you so much as wondering how all of the statements you've made can be simultaneously True.
You stated quite clearly that "results" were the only criteria you use to judge. I believed you when you said that.
That remains unchanged. But to state one thing doesn't mean another thing isn't also true, relevant or related to the first. You're suggesting I cannot state a belief in a concise manner...hitting the most important point in doing so...and not also consider other criteria. I don't need to point to anything other than results, because results are what matters most. But in debating the merits of one president against another, getting into more detail...widening that which commends the better president...in no way rationalizes questioning my general position as untrue or inaccurate. I don't understand where you're having a problem with this. Nothing I've said justifies questioning your belief in me "when I said that".
You have far more faith in the integrity of his detractors than do I. My lack of it is based on their history of refusing to ever acknowledge his good work. Even now, all I hear from all the same and usual suspects is the variations on the same theme indicating their TDS hatred. Truer than suggesting there's no evil Trump can do which would drive away his supporters is there's no amount or degree of good Trump can do which will convince his critics of how wrong they are to continue to criticize him. For every JD Vance or Victor Davis Hanson, there are hundreds (at least) who refuse to let any amount of good lessen their hatred. Of course, neither Vance nor Hanson are lefties, so that might have something to do with it. It's not a stretch to assert that Trump's win was very much helped by the destructive incompetence of Biden/Harris.
Trump not only has to do well, he has to do well in such an overwhelmingly obvious manner because evil never sleeps and the Dems will step up their efforts to oppose him. This is where intentions matter. Trump's not shy about saying what he wants to do. For those who want to see him do what he wants to do, they are aware, obviously, of his intentions and can easily judge as to the reasons why he failed to come through, if he indeed does. Was it just campaign talk? Was it lower on his list of priorities? Was he impeded by leftist and RINO obstruction? If it's mostly the latter, his failure to overcome that obstruction won't be misunderstood by those who wanted to see him achieve the goals he put forth and it won't mitigate their support for another GOP succeeding him.
Of course, all this hinges on people paying attention.
This has nothing to do with my faith in his detractors. Some of them wouldn't say anything positive about him no matter what, and that's True of every politician. But as we saw, there was a shift towards Trump from demographic groups and some left wing pundits toward accepting the reality that Trump was better than Biden. It's small, but it's there. If Trump follows through, it's logical that that will grow. FYI, this isn't Trump specific, but GOP in general. The DFL has failed in so many ways for so many years, and unless we have actual evidence that GOP policies are better, we'll lose to the Narrative.
This isn't about convincing everyone, it's about moving the needle on (for example, black voters) fro 95% DFL to 75% DFL. Those shifts would be seismic for national elections. It's about winning increasing numbers within the @20% undecided or independent bloc. There are voters who'll abandon the Narrative based on evidence to the contrary, and they're the ones we want.
Is it "fair" that Trump has to do better than others, no. But life isn't fair and complaining about fair is a waste of time. If Trump (again any GOP leader) does so well that it can't be denied, that's what we want. Isn't it? Don't you want Trump to crush his opposition, and have results that are undeniable?
Of course things hinge on people paying attention. The easier Trump can get people to pay attention to his successes, the better it is for those who aren't blinded by partisanship.
It's almost like I'm more positive than you on this. Maybe it's my profession and all the motivational carp I hear, but I absolutely think that Trump can do what he said he'd do well enough to make a great case for Vance/De Santis in 2028. Isn't that the goal?
FYI, when I say Vance/De Santis, I'm not excluding anyone else. I'm just acknowledging that those two are best positioned to get the nomination in 2028.
"This has nothing to do with my faith in his detractors."
Kinda does, or your faith in Trump has increased. My point is that his detractors are intractable and I wouldn't want to rely upon them to see the truth. Of those who seem to have done so, is the truth simply that Biden/Harris just sucked so bad they couldn't bear seeing them win again and thus the only way to prevent it was to vote for Trump? Like you, I hope there are more who realize the Trump was a proven commodity every bit as much as Biden/Harris was, but in a good way. Then, the problem will be complacency, which is not unique to the left by any means. Few on the right would ever vote for a Dem...especially these days...because they're just so lacking in principle, character and good ideas. Not sure a lefty who voted for Trump is now a convert so much a fed up with the effects of Biden. In the meantime, I also agree that the entirety of the GOP has to get with the program and stay there in order for lasting influence upon the left to be undeniable. Also not a given as I'm sure you'd agree.
"This isn't about convincing everyone, it's about moving the needle..."
Funny thing...this has been my position about the moral character of the nation. That we must do all we can to exert influence and highlight the truth at all times. It's not about total indoctrination or achieving absolute perfection, but to push that needle far enough that MOST people take for granted things like right and wrong, as well as good and bad political policy, as can be achieved so that our default position is leans hard into those things. There will always be those of the dark side. We need to make sure they're in the minority. A tough challenge indeed. As you suggest, it will likely be incremental, but we're off to a decent start. The next presidency is the important one, assuming it's also a Vance/DeSantis type of person carrying on.
Don't think I mentioned "fair", but otherwise, I do indeed what results which are undeniable. My concern is that such results don't guarantee they won't be denied. It was pretty undeniable what a clusterf**k Biden/Harris was, and it led to Trump's win. When those who would have otherwise continued voting Dem are no longer butt-hurt because of Trump's undeniable results, will they attribute the lack of pain to his actions, or to the fact that Biden/Harris hasn't been hurting their butts and it's now safe to again vote Dem?
"Of course things hinge on people paying attention. The easier Trump can get people to pay attention to his successes, the better it is for those who aren't blinded by partisanship."
Here again I insist it's incumbent upon those like us to do our part to make sure folks are paying attention and to point out their comfort and prosperity is due to Trump policies, just as they were during his first term. Of course Trump will be pointing it out, but it's erroneous to insist it's only on him to spread the word, just as we're to spread the Word.
It's not a matter of being more positive about it, but that I'm not going to assume anything. Remember, I'm concerned about complacency, which is natural when things are going well, and I'm concerned about falling prey to it myself. Nov '24 was just one battle in the greater war which continues. The left is certainly playing it that way right now.
First, I think you keep ignoring my original comment, where I was clear that Trump will not win over all of his critics.
Second, my faith in either is immaterial. I do think Trump has a better chance to accomplish things this time around and I do think that after the last election that DFL demographic strongholds aren't as strong as they used to be.
Your second paragraph, first sentence, sure sounds like an appeal to the unfairness of the standard Trump has to meet. As if Trump has to do more than anyone else.
Trump shouldn't be complacent either. He should get (and seems to be) push hard for getting his agenda moving and getting results before the midterms.
This is your blog, where you can say anything you want. Given that, why make statements that don't fully explain your position? Why get so defensive when the apparent contradictions or lack of detail/context is questioned.
I submit that there's a two-fold issue here: my imperfect attempts to be clear, and your imperfect attempts to understand where I'm unclear. As to the latter, it's either that or you for some reason can't understand. I don't believe that's the case, but given my comments don't suggest what you're insisting they do, it could be anything, regardless of my attempts to be clear or clarify what hasn't been understood as I intended.
But that's not being defensive, but only pointing out there has been no contradictions in fact, if there has nonetheless been contradictions wrongly perceived. Given other discussions where this has been the case, I'm somewhat expecting to hear something about beating dead horses.
You're right. It was completely my mistake to read your words about "results" being the only thing that mattered and to foolishly conclude that you really meant "results plus some other stuff". My bad. It was obviously wrong to copy paste your won words, which have all of the appearances of contradicting and not to assume some cosmic convergence that would explain.
You assume that I misunderstand you. I don't. I understand that in one comment you were quite adamant that "results" were the only thing that mattered, then you later added "intentions" to your list of things that matter or list of reasons why results were not achieved. I understand, I just can't help pointing out the additions to what really "matters".
I stick by my original statement and my original point. Trump has a massive opportunity here and the only thing that will matter is results. I'm a little shocked that this is a controversial position. If he gets the results he promised, it'll be good, if he doesn't then talking about intentions isn't going to get a GOP candidate elected in 2028.
If you think intentions is a great strategy for victory in 2028, then by all means, raise that banner high. IMO, results from Trump's first term are what caused the demographic swings that got him elected, not intentions or excuses.
I appreciate your graciousness in admitting your error. Nothing in anything I said adds to my positions that results are all which matter. Your copy/pasting of my words absolutely doesn't alter that. But while I might not have been clear enough initially, I've clarified at least a couple of times now that results pertains to what is important in ranking a president (with Dan's rankings in mind, I might remind), but that intentions at least provides an understanding of what a president is trying to accomplish. If the intentions are to push socialist policies, that too will suggest an inferior president even if he fails to make those policies law. As I've said already, if all we have are the intentions of two presidents, we can judge between them as to who is better. That doesn't mitigate the fact that results is the most important thing.
I'll try it this way: if all we had were Trump's intentions and he was prevented from every becoming president (as was the case with his attempt at reelection in 20200), I can easily judge him as better than Biden or Obama because of the results of their marxist policies, which were negative in the aggregate. Yet intentions don't replace results, and can't mean anything more than one guy was or is better than the Dem someone like Dan prefers. I want results. Trump gets them. End of story. But in debates about one guy versus another, intentions are not without value, for without good and proper intentions, good results are impossible.
"You assume that I misunderstand you. I don't."
You do and I don't "assume" it. I acknowledge it as the fact it is. If you truly understood, you would be "beating this dead horse" and ignoring the distinctions I made (multiple times) between results and intentions. But you do you.
"I understand that in one comment you were quite adamant that "results" were the only thing that mattered, then you later added "intentions" to your list of things that matter or list of reasons why results were not achieved."
This too is inaccurate...and greatly so. I added intentions with regard to dealing with the likes of Dan, and as I said above, intentions matter with regard to potential results. Trump's would yield good results whenever they were acted upon, while Obama's or Biden's never could. In that way, intentions most certainly matter, if one ever hopes to see good results, which is the basis for how we rank one president against others.
The importance of getting positive results is not the least bit controversial. You just decided to create controversy where none existed, even after clarification was provided (multiple times).
"If he gets the results he promised, it'll be good, if he doesn't then talking about intentions isn't going to get a GOP candidate elected in 2028."
This only applies to non-Trump voters/supporters, as well as Trump voters/supporters who don't pay attention to intentions...otherwise known as policy proposals. Being a Trump voter who does pay attention, I can't withhold my support for a GOP successor simply because Trump failed to achieve intended goals. Whomever seeks to follow him will have very similar goals for the most part, and whichever Dem seeks to replace him won't. I can only choose based on campaign promises, AKA "intentions".
"If you think intentions is a great strategy for victory in 2028, then by all means, raise that banner high."<
I love it when you say dickhead shit like this, Dan, as if it's an accurate representation of what I think. It's so grace embracing.
" IMO, results from Trump's first term are what caused the demographic swings that got him elected, not intentions or excuses."
Good for you. More factually, it was the abject failure and destructiveness of the Biden/Harris administration, together with Trump's first term results and his INTENTION to do more of it. Indeed, would he have had the demographic shift were it not for Biden's "results"?
"First, I think you keep ignoring my original comment, where I was clear that Trump will not win over all of his critics. "
Don't know how you could, since I agree with it.
"Second, my faith in either is immaterial. I do think Trump has a better chance to accomplish things this time around and I do think that after the last election that DFL demographic strongholds aren't as strong as they used to be."
But this is based on your faith that at some point, due to complacency as things get better, or because they couldn't bear more suffering a Biden/Harris victory in 2024 would bring them, that those who left the left to vote for Trump won't revert at some point in the future. I'd like to believe that former Dem voters who shifted to Trump weren't as leftist as they believed themselves to be, and honest enough to realize they were wrong about Trump...such as were those like me and JD Vance...and are now solidly seeing the light, never again to see Dems as better than they most certainly aren't. But I'll just wait and see about that.
"Your second paragraph, first sentence, sure sounds like an appeal to the unfairness of the standard Trump has to meet. As if Trump has to do more than anyone else."
While that wasn't at all my point or intention, it's not really off base, either. While I don't believe the left would treat any GOP president honestly, I've never seen them go as scorched earth on any as they have with Trump. Plus, he still has his NeverTrumper right-wingers who are simply quieted by his victory, not necessarily won over.
Trump's a results oriented guy. He wants them, and thus he's probably among the least likely to get complacent.
"Trump's a results oriented guy. He wants them, and thus he's probably among the least likely to get complacent."
Prior to his first term, I'd have agreed with this statement almost completely. Given the failures in the first term (which were balanced by the successes), less so. This time around I'm back to agreeing.
The problem is that guys like that, results driven, don't makes excuses about intentions. They learn from their failures and use their failures to drive success.
His first term had successes enough to more than merely balance out against any failures.
I don't understand this "making excuses about intentions" angle, as nothing I've said suggests making excuses. But "excuses" if used as the word is by athletes has always been inappropriately used and quite unnecessary. Explaining failure isn't making excuses. Excuses are employed by those whose failure was the result of not doing what they knew they should have been doing to succeed. More often than not, those explanations were lies to cover up their laziness (or whatever) so as to maintain an image they hope others perceive which isn't true.
So once again (and again and again so long as you choose to keep this up), my use of the word "intention" only refers to the desire to do that which would produce benefits if allowed to achieve it without being obstructed by outside forces. A general example again is the intention to employ tried and true strategies common to conservatives to improve the economy. During a campaign against a socialist of the type Dan finds so appealing, those intentions compel my judgement of the candidate to be superior. The conservative will achieve the desired result, while the Dan preference won't employing the typical marxist Democrat policies. If the conservative fails to do so, it won't be because of the intentions because conservative policies are far more likely to bring about the desired result than Dem policies. I'd say history backs me up well on this.
So if this doesn't clarify my position well enough for you, you can continue pretending I said something I didn't and I'll just ignore it.
I was not making the argument that Trump's 1st term was a 50/50 balance of success/failure. I was noting the obvious that Trump did have failures in his first term, but that those failures should be balanced against the successes. As one does when evaluating a presidential term. I probably should have gone into more detail, but assumed that it was a minor point and unworthy of belaboring. My bad.
Yes, I know what the word intention means in both the context of politics and in how you are using it. In neither context are intentions results. Call it what you will, attribute it to what you will, but not getting the desired/promised results is a failure. You can quibble about whether it's a partial or total failure if you want, you can quibble about reasons v. excuses if you want.
The reality, IMO, of the 2028 election will/should be Trump and his successor laying out the actual, tangible, positive results of Trump's 2nd term. It should be X was $10 when I took office, it's $5 now kinds of things. If the GOP candidate in 2028 is running on "Oh, we really wanted to do Y, but the DFL wouldn't let us." that's a steep, uphill climb to retain the inroads in certain demographic groups at best. If it's not, "Look at the tangible ways life is better, and now here's what we're going to do next.", it'll be a tough sell for the middle 20% of voters. Intentions are well and good, but we literally just had an election where the DFL ran on intentions and the GOP promised results. No shock, results won. Unfortunately, we as a society are conditioned to immediate gratification. We're seeing NFL coaches fired after 1 year because they didn't turn things around quickly enough. We as a society want results and we want them now. The GOP doesn't have the luxury of laying the groundwork for the next candidate, by making unseen structural changes (no matter how vital those are and how much I personally would appreciate those changes). The GOP/Trump has less than 2 years (before the midterms) to show results that people can actually experience. Does that suck, yes. Is that likely going to result in some poorly executed policies, probably. But the GOP/Trump needs congress to accomplish major things and he's not going to be able to do much if the DFL takes over at the midterms.
Your position is clear, I just don't think it's in alignment with how much of society (many of whom will need to vote GOP in 2028) thinks/feels. Again, it sucks that society is what it is, but better to accept that reality and govern to that reality, than be lost in the past.
Post a Comment