I'm very much interested in legit arguments for an option for president in '24 if Trump is not among them. Thus, I offer this post as a forum for those leaning to starboard to provide suggestions for who they'd like to see run at that time, and why. I don't think DeSantis will run, and he could really prove himself worthy of mass support if he serves another term as Florida governor first. And while I think he could step in immediately and be effective in the same way he's been effective in Florida, he's also setting an example of what a good governor should look like and another term would go a long way toward really cementing that in the minds of people of other states.
So if not Trump, then who? I still like Ted Cruz. I like Mike Pompeo, though I need to study his record more deeply. Tom Cotton's another possibility. Who do you think would be good and why?
As I said, this post is meant for those who lean conservative, but I'm always up for a good laugh, so if lefties can't help themselves, it would be fun to see which moron they'd support.
Thursday, July 21, 2022
Who If Not Him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I'd love to see DeSantis and Cruz. I'd love for Cruz to be on the Supreme Court someday. Not only would he be a solid constitutional vote, but with his logic and personality, he could shame some of the other judges into voting more sanely.
I'd vote for Pence. Not sure if any "pro-Trump" folks would. And given his clear and present genuine Christianity, he can't win. But I'd vote for him.
Neil,
Sure...DeSantis is a strong pick, except that I don't see him running this time around, and I agree with one writer who believes he'd be better served to do another term as FL governor. It makes sense. If I can find that article, I'll post it here.
I think Cruz would be a great Justice as well, but wonder if he would have chosen better than Trump did, even given the recent rulings by Trump's appointments. But yeah...a great Justice for sure, but also I think he'd do well as president.
Stan,
I'd vote for Pence if he ended up our nominee. I'd have to see the field before I'd vote for him in the primaries. I still have a bad taste in my mouth over his failure to stand firm regarding Indiana's RFRA law. I want someone with more backbone and I've not been convinced his capitulation on that matter was justified. I think him sincere in his faith, but sincerity means nothing when the chips are down and one folds.
I'm thinking De Santis is the best option, and I also suspect that he won't run. I think that his hesitation about running is more about not wanting to go up against Trump. He watched Trump run a scorched earth primary the last time around, and is patient enough to wait until Trump is out of the way before he runs.
I agree that I personally think Pence would be good, but again since Trump has and will continue to demonize him I think it's unlikely.
I'd love to see Condi Rice, but I think she's not looking to go through the crap that a presidential run would entail.
Other options
Cruz
Pompeo
Noem
Haley
If I look strictly at the political calculus, it seems absurd to run a candidate that has such high negatives, and has managed to offend large segments of the GOP and expect him to overcome all of the baggage and negative perception. It also seems like two of his biggest positives (SCOTUS and the "vaccine"), aren't actually going to help generate broad enough support to get him elected.
I will say that IF the DFL is stupid enough to run Biden again, then I believe that it's possible for Trump to beat him given Trump's pre COVID economic record, and Biden's less than stellar first term.
There is a part of me that kind of wants Trump to run, and lose to some random DFL candidate. I'd hope that it would derail the Trump train for good. Although, I suspect that his die hard supporters won't ever let it go.
I believe DeSantis gave two reasons for not running for prez in '24: The health of his wife and the fact that he'd be in the middle of his next term as governor of FL. If it turns out he chooses not to run for reelection, I would suspect a presidential run is more likely.
Of course, all who consider a run usually do some sort of surveying (an exploratory committee?) to see if they actually have enough support to make it worth the effort. (I'd guess that moron Kamala Harris never did that). I haven't heard DeSantis has anything like that planned at this point, but I would wager the health of his wife is the most important concern which would delay a presidential run. I also agree with some who insist he's better served by remaining in the Florida governor mansion for another term.
I doubt the Dems have anyone who could beat Trump. This is especially true if they run the same gaggle of geeks they ran in the last election. What a bunch of dopes! The only one I think could stand a chance...if the Dems have a brain...is Tulsi Gabbard. But she's not really lefty enough of those morons, so it's difficult to suppose she'd get any attention from the moronic base which rejected her once before.
I'm extremely interested in hearing your reasoning for hoping or fantasizing a Trump loss to ANY Democrat, especially given what the Dems have become! How could such a thing result in better days for the nation? Really, Craig. You got some 'splainin' to do!
Art,
It's pretty simple. Trump is and has been a terrible candidate. He's polarizing even within his own potential constituency, let alone across the aisle. I believe that the primary reason he won, was that the DFL managed to pick a worse candidate than Trump. If he somehow gets the nomination in '24, all the DFL needs to to is to run someone who isn't a far left nutjob. Hell, if they run someone under 60 who's not an extremist (or who can fool a bunch of people), I can't see how they lose. You're correct that Gabbard would be tough to beat, and that she's to sane for the DFL base. If Klobuchar wasn't white, she'd be formidable because she come off as pretty reasonable and centrist.
I feel like I've explained this ad nauseum. But here it goes again.
1. The GOP needs to stop running old white guys. Try something different.
2. Old people in general shouldn't run for president.
3. Trump still has all the negative baggage that he had during '16, and unfortunately has picked up more negative baggage.
4. The left has proven that they are completely uninterested in the Truth about allegations against Trump. Why make it easy for them to lie?
5. Elections should be about the future, not the past.
6. I'm looking for a president who has more self control than a teenage boy, has the ability to deal with people he doesn't agree with, and who has enough self awareness to be humble.
I'm not saying I'd never vote for Trump, but I expect the conservatives in this country to put forth the best option, and have higher standards for leaders, than the left.
Craig,
Who is Trump's constituency? Is it those who support him and gave him about ten million more votes than he got the first time...I believe it was more than any other GOP candidate before him....or is it the entirety of those who lean toward the GOP. If the latter, we already know that those "polarized" were the establishment types as embodied in a Mitch McConnell. Among those who've supported him, there have always been those who dislike aspects of his character, but don't hold against him his manner of response against all the crap he's made to endure.
The negatives of his manner are what resulted in all the good he accomplished, including that which the GOP types with whom we've had a problem for some time have failed to accomplish or didn't find worth fighting for. And that's the thing about Trump. He's a brawler and brawlers are often less than polite. Boo-f**king-hoo. What has decorum gotten us before Trump? It got us McCain and Romney.
And that's the great thing about DeSantis. He's the same kind of fighter Trump is without the boorishness, but he's not running, so the question remains: If not Trump, then who, and by that I meant...and should have been more clear....who is as capable of getting things done in the face of what will most assuredly be an even increased attack by the party seeking to ruin our nation? Why should we take a chance on anyone else but one who's been proven effective already?
By the way, Klobuchar is as much a moron as the rest of the Dem field was. Gabbard would be the least destructive and possibly even effective in some areas, but just another Dem in others. It's the latter which frightens as we can't know exactly what that would mean. There was one other guy whose name eludes me who was not the most absurd in the crowd, yet he had enough of his own goofy ideas which our nation cannot tolerate. Should his name come to mind, I'll mention it.
Now I'll respond to your list:
1. The GOP should never consider support based on age. That's a Dem thing, just as rejecting white guys in favor of black guys.
2. Same as above. The obvious difference between Trump and Biden should be enough to demonstrate the absurdity of that expectation. They're close in age, but a universe apart in terms of intelligence and ability to grasp what's most necessary. Trump cuts through the bullshit, even if he brings some of his own. What he brings is of little consequence to that which he cuts through.
3. I'm still waiting to see someone present an example of how any of the Trump's "baggage" made him less effective. I asked before...how much better would the economy have been, how much lower unemployment, how much more energy independent, etc., would things have been without Trump's "baggage"? Until that can be answered, concerns about the baggage he had in '16 are irrelevant. "New baggage" is merely the result of the incredible amount of crap thrown his way. Remove the crap and the baggage is even less significant. THAT is where the focus should be...not on whining about Trump's style, but standing next to him in fighting against all the bullshit too many from both parties have tried to use to unseat and defeat him.
4. F**k the left. Your position is surrendering to them, complicity, aiding and abetting, when it should provoke greater opposition to it. The lies of the left are destroying this nation in ways Trump's "style" and "manner" couldn't possibly. Stop helping them.
5. The "past" of concern is the years during the Trump presidency. The "future" is extricating ourselves from the current clusterf**k the rejection of Trump brought about. This argument is nonsensical. We won't get to a better future without a fighter. Who would that be if not Trump. It won't be DeSantis...so who? And why?
6. I'm looking for a president who knows what's needed and doesn't care how he looks getting the job done. Humility is meaningless if that doesn't happen. Saintliness is worthless if we're made more vulnerable and dependent on the "good graces" of our enemies. My grandkids have to grow up in this world and people are worried about bullshit.
You're trading one set of high standards for another. Your set of standards are all superficial if the set your reject results in ineffectiveness. I don't give a flying rat's ass how "presidential" the next GOP nominee is. I demand someone who will fight off the assholes morons like Dan supports who have so badly harmed this nation in every way imaginable. I want someone who will scare the shit out of the Chi-Coms, Putins and N. Koreans and Iranians so that they only see their own destruction if they move against us.
Who embodies such things in your mind and what makes you think so? We both would prefer Trump was a different kind of guy in a variety of ways. But Trump is Trump and I absolutely am willing to take the insignificant bad with the unquestionable good.
"To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, we cannot spare this man; he fights."
(from https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/trump_or_desantis_who_is_the_man_for_the_times.html)
Find me another.
"Who is Trump's constituency?"
This is an interesting question, as is your answer. It seems to presume that the constituency of any POTUS is only those people who vote for them. If this is the case, then all you are advocating is more partisan siloing of the electorate. I'm not sure that's healthy.
I'm not saying Klobuchar isn't bad, just that she's can portray herself is a very reasonable candidate.
The assumption that Trump has some sort of quasi magical power to simply make everything work the way it did pre COVID seems a bit pollyannaish.
1. Bullshit. If the only option the GOP has is someone past 70, then the GOP and the conservative movement have failed. It's absolutely absurd that there is no process in place to groom the next generation of leaders. I'm not saying that age is the primary factor, but c'mon this clinging to old people is ridiculous.
2. Again, bullshit. Trying to portray Trump as being incrementally "better" than Biden is a pretty low bar. I guess I have higher expectations than "better then Biden". Of course, you're also making a huge assumption that Trump hasn't deteriorated since '20, and won't deteriorate between now and the end of his theoretical second term.
3. Except his baggage has grown, and he's managed to piss off the people in his own party who are necessary to accomplish anything. Again, this is all based on your assumptions that anyone can just jump in and impose their will as POTUS.
4. This doesn't even make sense. To feed their lies by running Trump doesn't help anyone.
5. Of course we've seen some significant changes since 2019, and I'm not sure that adopting a "what worked then, will automatically work now" approach is a great plan. Further, the future extends way beyond the next 4 years.
6. Yes you are. Unfortunately not everyone is looking for the exact same thing that you are looking for, and unfortunately y'all need to expand the GOP/Conservative candidate's base not contract it.
I think that part of the problem here is that you're attached to Trump as your default position, while I'm not. As we sit here more than 2 years before the next presidential election, it seems absolutely absurd to simply anoint anyone (including Trump) as the chosen one.
What I see happening if Trump runs is a primary campaign where Trump goes scorched earth against his primary opponents, and one or more of his primary opponents respond in kind. Because Trump's "They're all out to get me, I'm being persecuted." schtick isn't effective, we see someone else as the candidate. Trump responds by refusing to support, and actively opposes the GOP candidate, and we end up with Biden 2.0, Harris, or Clinton for the next 4 years.
The problem is that Trump isn't automatically the bast option, or the only option. He can choose what's more important to him, to win or to get his way. The bottom line is that the reason he lost in '20 was because of him, no one else. But if y'all think that running someone without self control is the best option, cool.
Craig,
""Who is Trump's constituency?"
This is an interesting question, as is your answer. It seems to presume that the constituency of any POTUS is only those people who vote for them. If this is the case, then all you are advocating is more partisan siloing of the electorate. I'm not sure that's healthy."
My "answer" was a question seeking clarification on the term "Trump's constituency". It would not be far fetched that to some the term only includes those who support him as well as his insistence (justly so) that the election was stolen. While I view any president as more the head of the entire party to which he claims membership, and thus the entirety of the party's voters are his constituency, there are beyond any shadow of a doubt many in the party who would bristle at being referred to as a Trump supporter, and indeed reject him as they always have. Thus, in asking the question, it accounts for those who should have supported him, by virtue of their common party, but didn't because of whatever bullshit reason to which they still cling.
"I'm not saying Klobuchar isn't bad, just that she's can portray herself is a very reasonable candidate."
Hopefully, not to any self-respecting conservative or Republican voter. To suggest she might be considered a more reasonable choice than Trump is an indictment of any such right-winger who would suggest such a thing. The very notion is absurd.
"The assumption that Trump has some sort of quasi magical power to simply make everything work the way it did pre COVID seems a bit pollyannaish."
Good thing I never suggested such a thing. But to pretend his record of accomplishment doesn't carry any weight in deciding whom to support is far worse. Were it anyone else, there would be no question it would make him deserving, either in this current situation, as well as the last election. This suggestion is akin to not betting on a proven winner in any sport. A team or athlete's track record makes betting against him to repeat extremely foolish. As they say in stock picking, past performance is no guarantee of future results. But it makes for a far better investment than a stock with no record of profit. This is basic stuff.
1. You keep using the phrase "only option". Who's talking about Trump being the "only option". His record makes him...if not the best option...among the best. His age has not been a factor, and while I also worry about how age might at some point screw things up, that's what the vice-president is for. I doubt he'd pick a Republican Kamala Harris...or even a Republican Joe Biden...because I don't believe we have people that stupid and unworthy to step in should Trump fall. (This is the case for any of the several people being considered as possible contenders, so we'll be covered better by having a good prez as well as a good vice should the vice be needed. The Dems pick their vice to scare off any consideration of removing the prez.)
2. You misunderstand. I would never suggest that Trump is "incrementally" better than Biden. That's absurd. He's head and shoulders better than Biden, but his "incremental" difference in age is almost a non-factor. THAT was my point. I make no assumption about Trump's health, and without any professional diagnosis, there's no legit reason to question it except to simply reject him for whatever reason one can put forth.
3. And answer in three parts:
3a. In what way has his "baggage" grown? Are you sure it's not merely your distaste for the guy which has grown, buoyed by his insistence he was jobbed out of the presidency? If he believes it, why should he bend the knee to those who want him to stop talking about it? Such a thing would make more sense if claims of election fraud were honestly and legitimately investigated instead of just dismissing.
3b. Who has he pissed off in his party who wasn't already pissed off? Those who want him to stop talking about the election being stolen, when they likely should have been demanding investigations, too? Who are these people and when can we expect party members to come together the way Dems do to further their anti-American goals? Imagine what we could accomplish!
3c. I've never assumed any such thing. But it's the safe bet that an accomplished, successful president who proved he's far smarter than anyone who opposes him has the honesty to recognize would do as well the second time around. Again, it's basic stuff.
4. One doesn't give liars any legitimacy. You're suggesting we do by replacing Trump at all costs. Again... f**k the left. Let them lie. Nothing you want to see happen will have any effect on their willingness to lie.
5. I don't think I can believe that in any other situation of any kind you would view "what worked then, will likely work now" so dismissively. It's TDS, not true reasoning. Maybe it won't work now. Make the case as to why without simply buying into the Trump-hatred. I don't care who hates him. I care about what's best for the nation. If it's not him, then who? It seems so far the answer is "anyone". I'm not hearing any good reasons.
6. More nonsense, Craig. Why anyone would not be looking for the most effective president is beyond my ability to understand. Just throwing out names doesn't get the job done. Argue for why another choice would be better if Trump does indeed run again. What those who fear a second term by him fail to realize is that what the lefties do or say doesn't matter so long as we have a united front against them and for the nation. We didn't have that for a single moment since he won the nomination and then the election in 2016. There were always NeverTrumpers who continued to pretend we were f**ked having him as president while he went on to prove them wrong...AND THEY STILL THINK WE WERE F**KED!!!! THAT is why we lost in 2020. NOT because of Trump.
"I think that part of the problem here is that you're attached to Trump as your default position, while I'm not. As we sit here more than 2 years before the next presidential election, it seems absolutely absurd to simply anoint anyone (including Trump) as the chosen one."
Trump's success should make him everyone's default position and it's weird as hell that it's not! Again, in no other situation would that be the case. But TDS infects too many on the right as well as the epidemic of it among the moronic left. If that wasn't the case, he'd be president now and we wouldn't be suffering as we are. You seem to not believe that, and definitely you seem to believe that he couldn't possibly do a good job again, but without legitimate reason that you've put forth yet.
"What I see happening if Trump runs is..." quite a fantasy. Here's a thought. Write to him and implore not to do such a thing should he lose in the primary if you really think he'd risk the nation losing again.
"The problem is that Trump isn't automatically the bast option, or the only option."
I've never once insisted such a thing, but only made the obvious point that due to his great work the first time, he's likely the best option and, now that you mention it, maybe the only option. And thus the question in the title: If not him, then who? So far "he/she is not Trump" is the main reason I'm getting. That's not good enough.
If you thin running someone with self-control but less ability to get things done is the best option, that's not cool at all.
Here's the thing:
I want what's best for the nation, because my grandkids have to grow up here. What happened as a result of rejecting Trump has put us on the darkest course we've seen in my lifetime. The worst part about it is that given the choice in 2020, there was no way it wasn't going to go south. It was only a question of how hard and how fast. It went south harder and faster than I would have ever thought it possible, and the reason is because of the bullshit concerns about Trump's manner and his tweets and his adulterous affairs when he was still able to get it up. None of that mattered as to the great things he did to MAGA. All that mattered was that he did indeed MAGA. And because that wasn't enough for too many people...because that wasn't the main thing for enough people, those people are responsible for all that's going wrong now. And the main thing is that one of the bright lights is the recent SCOTUS rulings which were made possible as part of the MAGA agenda of the guy so many rejected for asshole reasons.
So yeah...I'd have absolutely no problem voting for him again should he choose to run. Only DeSantis would draw my vote away from Trump at this stage of the game, and he ain't runnin'. (I'm compelled to believe...without having any way of knowing such a thing...that DeSantis would defer ONLY because he was happy with Trump's job the first time and not for any other reason. I think he'd throw his support behind Trump. Just my opinion.)
I'm aware of possible contenders, one of which I voted for in the primaries prior to the 2016 General Election. In addition to that dude (Cruz), there are others worth consideration, but if the issue is between any of them and Trump, it would be as if they were running against Trump as an incumbent. Any of them would have needed to convince the public they could do even better than Trump did. They'll need to do that now. It'll be interesting to see on what basis they make such a case.
The problem with this conversation at this point is that it's especially pointless right now. So much bears on the '24 nominee that we don't know. Until we actually see who is running, there doesn't seem to be much point in any detailed conversation.
As far as Klobuchar, I'm merely saying that she's good at portraying a persona which comes off as less extreme than other democrats.
"This suggestion is akin to not betting on a proven winner in any sport."
Yet the problem I have with Trump is that his "winning percentage" isn't that great. His record on spending was atrocious even before COVID, in hindsight his great COVID accomplishment the "vaccine" has proven to be less impressive, his failure to actually lead on an infrastructure bill that actually addressed actual infrastructure issues, and his failure to do anything with his "platinum plan", certainly don't help.
Was he a more successful president than many, yes. Was he one of the best, no. My problem is when y'all focus all of your effort on Trump as if he's the foregone conclusion. How about if we chill out on anointing him, and see who else steps forward first. Of course, Trump in the race will likely limit the primary field after his evisceration of his primary opponents in '16 and the likelihood that he won't support anyone else if he loses the primary.
1. The folks who only mention Trump for '24. The folks who respond negatively to anyone but Trump.
2. No, I understand that you think Trump was an amazing president, and we agree that Biden is a failure. But given Trump's failures to hold the line on the issues I mentioned earlier, it's hardly a resounding success. It also seems disingenuous to bash Fauci, while ignoring the fact that Trump went along with many/most of Fauci's recommendations.
"In what way has his "baggage" grown?"
Regardless of the reality, the J6 accusations and Trump's refusal to move forward regarding the '20 election results is just more baggage. Hell you and I both know that the Russia crap is still going to be believed by the Dan's of the world. If Trump was serious about the election stuff, he'd be making a positive case with detailed plans for how he'd make elections more secure. Instead, he sound just like Hillary whining about how he got screwed.
"Who has he pissed off in his party who wasn't already pissed off?"
People like me who might have been willing to hold our noses and vote for him in '20, but are tired on his obsessive focus on the past, instead of the future. The fact that he's whining about how he got screwed, instead of talking about how to make all elections for all candidates more secure.
4. No I'm not. I'm suggesting that Trump has a long, documented history of lying, or manipulating the Truth to benefit himself. If giving liars credibility is a problem, then it seems like that goes both ways. But more than that, I'm suggesting that running a candidate that has less negatives than Trump, along with higher positives than Trump is a better plan both in '24 and in the long term.
5. Maybe because things are different now that they were in 2018. Maybe because good leaders grow and adapt, not cling to something that worked before.
The problem as I see it is that you default to anyone who isn't as 100% in the tank for Trump as you are as being a "never Trumper" or having "TDS". Which is bullshit. My criticisms of Trump have remained consistent since he first ran. I've been quite clear that he did a better job than I thought he would have. I've also been quite clear that he has some significant failures on his ledger as well. If we've reached the point where trying to have a balanced view of Trump's presidency, and the desire to bring some new blood into the GOP/conservative movement, are negative then we're screwed. I don't want to go through another primary like '16 where Trump attacked his primary opponents as if they were in a general election. After what Trump said about Cruz, how would you possibly expect Trump to support his nomination? Ultimately I'm more convinced that Trump is more concerned about himself and his image than anything else. The fact that he was able to do some things that were beneficial to the country was great, but this feels like it's more about him than us.
Again, this is all pointless. How about if we put as much energy into the '22 midterms as we are in pimping Trump for '24?
"The problem with this conversation at this point is that it's especially pointless right now. So much bears on the '24 nominee that we don't know. Until we actually see who is running, there doesn't seem to be much point in any detailed conversation."
The point of my posing the question doesn't at all rely upon who has announced, but rather upon what one might prefer to see happen if the choice denied Trump.
"As far as Klobuchar, I'm merely saying that she's good at portraying a persona which comes off as less extreme than other democrats."
Didn't you mention something earlier about a low bar?
"Yet the problem I have with Trump is that his "winning percentage" isn't that great."
I could not disagree more. You've pretty much exhausted the negatives of his presidency and must ignore quite a few positives to suggest a mediocre winning percentage. What's more, the impact of the good things can't be ignored as if each policy...good or not so good...are equal in that regard. Where I can disagree is on his spending...and infrastructure is a part of that. I had a problem with it at the time. His getting a "vaccine" as quickly as he did was the accomplishment. That the "vaccine" turned out to be crap is a separate issue. Recall that it was asserted with all measure of certainty he couldn't possibly get anything done with regard to a vaccine, and also that the most urgency dealt with the number of old folks dropping like flies. To that end, the crappy "vaccines" still had some value given the risk/reward calculations for old folks were and still are to a great degree on the plus side (assuming nothing we've learned in the meantime are not factored in).
As to the "Platinum Plan", if you're referring to his Plan for Black Americans, he rolled that out at the end of 2020, so I don't know you can hold that against him. If it's some attempt to improve health care...particularly to replace Obamacare...it's absurd to expect that he can do everything in four years, and then be held to account because he ran out of time. In any case, I'll need to know to what you're referring.
"Was he a more successful president than many, yes. Was he one of the best, no."
If we're going to rank presidents according to what they got done and how what they got done improved or harm the nation, I don't think honest people could honestly NOT rank him among the best. There's also a great deal of "apples/oranges" considerations which makes it a difficult endeavor. But one would still have to be seeking a way to reduce him in such rankings...ala Dan's "historians"...to not come away with Trump being...at worst...among the top third of presidents in US history.
"My problem is when y'all focus all of your effort on Trump as if he's the foregone conclusion."
Clearly the point of this post is contrary to that suggestion. I wouldn't even ask if I thought no one else could possibly turn things around. I simply wanted to know who that person might be in the opinion of others. I mentioned a couple of possibilities myself as you'll note in the post, which doesn't at all suggest Trump's the foregone conclusion. At the same time, many are acting in that manner even if neither us are. My position is simply that I believe we'd be more than merely fine if it was indeed him, even with all the abject bullshit flowing from those who want someone else they don't name.
"Of course, Trump in the race will likely limit the primary field after his evisceration of his primary opponents in '16 and the likelihood that he won't support anyone else if he loses the primary."
If his presence does limit the primary field, I believe...and certainly would hope...that it would be because others view him as the incumbent rightfully deserving...which he pretty much is. I don't see any reason to suspect he wouldn't support whoever else wins the primary as unlike so very many, he truly is an "America first" kinda guy and would definitely NOT want to see a Dem win. I challenge you to dispute that with something more substantial than your low opinion of the man.
"1. The folks who only mention Trump for '24. The folks who respond negatively to anyone but Trump."
I don't know that's as large a group as you seem to believe it is. Yet I don't fault anyone who sees him as the best option. He's proven himself and no one who believes him the best option is somehow irrational for believing so. Thus, to think anyone else would be a step down is equally rational for such people and also not something that should be dismissed when no persuasive argument is offered instead.
"2. No, I understand that you think Trump was an amazing president, and we agree that Biden is a failure. But given Trump's failures to hold the line on the issues I mentioned earlier, it's hardly a resounding success."
A legit and honest list of pros and cons would correct this poor perception. The "failures" you mentioned were a scant few. His successes are quite a bit more plentiful. I've listed them before...and then only partially.
"It also seems disingenuous to bash Fauci, while ignoring the fact that Trump went along with many/most of Fauci's recommendations."
I absolutely count Fauci and Birx (as well as the third guy whose name eludes me, but seems to have acknowledged their impotence) as an abject failure of Trump's presidency, and have said so. Yet, I don't fault him for believing this asshole was a worthy choice necessarily. In the beginning, no one honest thought the virus would become what it did so tapping a moron like Fauci wasn't really a risky thing. It quickly became evidence just what a bad move it was and I fault Trump for not firing the moron and moving to have him removed from his cushy, stupidly high-paying gig...to whatever extent he had authority to do so. Yet, Trump was constantly in a "damned he did/damned if he didn't" situation with covid and overall, I think he did far better than most would have in the same situation...largely because of those qualities for which he is still pilloried as if they matter.
"Regardless of the reality, the J6 accusations and Trump's refusal to move forward regarding the '20 election results is just more baggage."
Why should he? Unlike assholes like Hillary, Stacey Abrams or Al Gore, he was actually robbed and no honest person can argue he wasn't.
"If Trump was serious about the election stuff, he'd be making a positive case with detailed plans for how he'd make elections more secure."
Aside from the fact that such things are state issues...and states have already moved to strengthen voter integrity to the great chagrin of Dems who benefit greatly by the lack thereof...how would this not also be regarded as Trump refusing to move forward, especially if people pick apart his ideas, which they most certainly will?
"People like me who might have been willing to hold our noses and vote for him in '20, but are tired on his obsessive focus on the past, instead of the future."
Who the f**k do you think would do a damned thing about securing future elections if he wasn't continually justly pointing out how he was cheated? How many are doing much now, except for a few states doing a few things, and how many would have without him speaking on the issue? Do you honestly believe anything would be done in that regard had he said nothing about losing and how it happened? That would be silly to suggest.
"4. No I'm not. I'm suggesting that Trump has a long, documented history of lying, or manipulating the Truth to benefit himself."
And still I can't get anyone to provide an example of any egregious lie he told which so greatly benefited him. What's more:
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-massive-lies-past-presidents-make-trump-look-honest
There are even articles speaking about presidents further back than the above covered. Trump's alleged untruthfulness is highly exaggerated.
"But more than that, I'm suggesting that running a candidate that has less negatives than Trump, along with higher positives than Trump is a better plan both in '24 and in the long term."
You may be hard pressed to find such a person given the reality of his pros/cons. I'll be doing a brief post on that very issue next.
"5. Maybe because things are different now that they were in 2018. Maybe because good leaders grow and adapt, not cling to something that worked before."
On what possible basis would you suggest that Trump is incapable of dealing with issues of any kind? This is incredibly absurd! It's what you want to believe about him without having any true reason behind the belief. Indeed, his first term shows how he deals with different issues and how he's more likely than not to deal effectively. Good gosh! I didn't want to say it, but this is very Dan-like!
"The problem as I see it is that you default to anyone who isn't as 100% in the tank for Trump as you are as being a "never Trumper" or having "TDS"."
That's funny. Yet when one sees such lame arguments against supporting him for another term, what is one to think? I don't require that anyone love the guy, but to pretend I'm infatuated beyond reason is without basis. I'm far more objective than you want to acknowledge and I would insist far more so than you've shown yourself as being. I held my nose in 2016. He showed very well I didn't need to hold it in 2020, and I see no reason to hold it in '24 if he turns out to be the people's choice for GOP nominee.
"If we've reached the point where trying to have a balanced view of Trump's presidency, and the desire to bring some new blood into the GOP/conservative movement, are negative then we're screwed."
This "balanced view" is decidedly unbalanced and I don't believe for a minute you would have or have had judged any other president in the same way, expecting that they shouldn't get a second chance if they did well enough the first time around, which is difficult to imagine given who has done as well in the first term as Trump has? This is just the reality, like it or not. We're far more screwed holding this guy up to a higher standard than is legitimate and presuming he's not worthy as a result. This leads us to a lesser option by virtue of such nonsensical demands on this one particular guy, which will NOT be levied against any other. I've certainly seen no evidence that it will.
"After what Trump said about Cruz, how would you possibly expect Trump to support his nomination?"
On the simple fact that Trump's love of country won't allow him to withhold support from whomever the people choose to oppose the leftist the Dems push.
"Ultimately I'm more convinced that Trump is more concerned about himself and his image than anything else."
I think you always felt that way about him, and now, with him being the only person truly speaking about the problems of the last election, you double down on it. It's false and the very fact that this dude will continue to push against the many attacks on him belie that sentiment.
"The fact that he was able to do some things that were beneficial to the country was great, but this feels like it's more about him than us."
"Some" things that were beneficial? And you want to pretend you're not a NeverTrumper type...even a little bit? How absurd! And then you go on to suggest I'm "pimping" for him? Good gosh!
By the way, I'm totally into the midterms. Looking forward to it. The exploding leftist heads will be entertaining. But if we don't have people who have learned the lessons they should be embracing after seeing how Trump gets things done, it will be all for naught. Look at how many GOP reps have fallen in with this bullshit "Respect For Marriage" capitulation to perversion act. We need more Trumps and fewer go-along-to-get-along Republicans. I'm not holding my breath.
"I want what's best for the nation,"
As do we all. The problem is that I don't think that 4 years of Trump is what's best for the long term. I've said it before. I don't see any indication that Trump is mainly focused on anything but proving that he really didn't lose in '20. He doesn't seem to have any interest in setting up any sort of long term succession or in what happens after he's term limited out of office. He's clearly not interested in setting up the party or the conservative movement as much as he is in endorsing candidates who support him.
Look, I was fine with him being the nominee in '20, and would have been fine with him winning in '20, but I'm ready for someone new in '24.
"The point of my posing the question doesn't at all rely upon who has announced, but rather upon what one might prefer to see happen if the choice denied Trump."
If that's the point, then why are you spending so much effort to argue against who anyone might prefer and insist that Trump is the better option? I've given you my preferences, and all you've done is pimp Trump.
It's over 3 years out, and on the other side of a critical mid term. Why are you wasting so much time pushing Trump, instead of digging into how to make gains in November.
I've said everything I have to say, I don't think Trump is the best option, and I don't see how you continuing to repeat yourself is going to change any of that.
" I don't see any indication that Trump is mainly focused on anything but proving that he really didn't lose in '20."
Nonsense. If anything, I'd suggest he'd be more likely to ignore it all if he won in '24. He'd be more likely to carry on with that argument if he lost again.
"He doesn't seem to have any interest in setting up any sort of long term succession or in what happens after he's term limited out of office. He's clearly not interested in setting up the party or the conservative movement as much as he is in endorsing candidates who support him."
First off, how have either of the Bush's or Reagan set up any sort of long term succession or party/conservative movement following the end of their terms? I don't recall any such efforts or any expression of intent toward such a thing. I would instead they each set an example, but beyond that, they were all rather quite after their terms, particularly Bush 43. In the meantime, Trump set an example as well and one future Republicans damned well better follow, given the effectiveness of his style. DeSantis has it and it works well for him, too.
"Look, I was fine with him being the nominee in '20, and would have been fine with him winning in '20, but I'm ready for someone new in '24."
How nice. But you've given no substantive reason that doesn't merely rehash the typical TDS talking points. You're basically saying he's rude, crude and socially unacceptable and his presidency wasn't perfect. Oh...and he's old. I say he got things done despite lacking perfection and being old and crass. The positives far outweigh the negatives, and you just want someone else. Why not just add that he's overweight cuz then you'd really sell it.
"If that's the point, then why are you spending so much effort to argue against who anyone might prefer and insist that Trump is the better option? I've given you my preferences, and all you've done is pimp Trump."
Bullshit. I've only responded to your unreasonable, Dem-like trashing of the guy, which doesn't do squat to argue if favor of your preferences. I would have expected some explanation for those preferences rather than simply naming them. Might as well have added perennial favorite, Mickey Mouse if you're going to forgo reasoning behind your preferences. And since when is pointing out Trump's effectiveness "pimping"? "Lowest unemployment since the '60's!" "You're just pimping Trump!!" Good gosh!
" Why are you wasting so much time pushing Trump, instead of digging into how to make gains in November."
Gee. My first response would be "because the topic of this post is, if not Trump, then who?"
"How to make gains in November" is a totally unrelated topic, perhaps for another post.
"I've said everything I have to say, I don't think Trump is the best option, and I don't see how you continuing to repeat yourself is going to change any of that."
It would just be nice if you provided a legitimate argument for why you don't seem as the best option. Look, dude. I'm trying to do that for myself. Should no such argument be found, then Trump is indeed the best option. It's that simple..far simpler, it appears, than coming up with that argument. The "rude, crude and socially unacceptable and his presidency wasn't perfect. Oh...and he's old." argument is really rather weak.
"He'd be more likely to carry on with that argument if he lost again."
Exactly. Especially if he lost in the primary and convinced a big number of his supporters that the GOP nominee wasn't legitimate.
"But you've given no substantive reason that doesn't merely rehash the typical TDS talking points."
"It would just be nice if you provided a legitimate argument for why you don't seem as the best option."
It's interesting when you borrow rhetorical tropes from Dan like these. I've been giving reasons why I don't think Trump should be president since 2015. The only new reason is the fact that I am now convinced that age is a concern. The fact that you don't agree with or like my reasons, doesn't render them illegitimate. Hell, you even agree with some of them, you're just willing to accept things that you don't like in the hopes that Trump will do a better job this time around. The difference between us is, that I have no desire to convince, shame, or belittle you for your choice. One's vote is a personal, private matter and is between the voter and their conscience. I can only hope that you'll wait until after we see who is running before you commit yourself.
I guess that pointing out Trump's many flaws and why those flaws concern me, is simply "trashing" him now. What a strange notion. That pointing out the obvious (both good and bad) is somehow "trashing" someone.
My single biggest policy concern is that Trump will run up trillions more in deficit spending and increase the national debt just like he did the first time. If concern that Trump spectacularly failed to engage in controlling spending isn't a legitimate concern, as well as a fundamental conservative principle, then I have no response. Even if one grants that the massive spike in spending due to COVID was necessary, the economic growth didn't begin to offset the spending. If concern over Trump's ability to lower spending isn't legitimate, then I can't help you.
"Exactly. Especially if he lost in the primary and convinced a big number of his supporters that the GOP nominee wasn't legitimate."
Well that presupposes his supporters don't think for themselves and would necessarily regard a primary loss in the same manner they'd regard another loss to the party of incompetence like last time around. This is very Dan-like to think in this manner. I think it would be a much tougher sell to assert the GOP cheated him out of a primary win the way the Dems cheated him out of the presidency. Then again, I guess it would depend upon whom the GOP establishment supported against him. Let's say a Mitch Romney had support of McConnell and won the primary. That would be suspicious to be sure. But then, like with the Dem theft in 2020, his supporters in such a scenario would likely already be compelled to mistrust without Trump having to tell them a thing.
You seem to think I disagree with your reasons...the "cons" of the pro/con decision making process...when in fact that's not the case. Where we disagree is in the degree of importance you give to those reasons, none of which I regard as frivolous (except possibly the age reason). But we each accept negatives in choosing among the options provided. Why that's an issue here is beyond me.
I'm not supposing Trump will do a "better" job if given the opportunity, but only a better job than the asshole in the Big Chair now, and "as good" a job as he did the first time. Sure, it's possible he'll suck, but given his record, that's unlikely.
I absolutely about trying to convince others to vote a particular way. You want to believe I'm fixed on Trump, when all I'm doing is asking for some actual arguments for choosing someone else. Age isn't a good one. Deficit spending can be if the alternative option has some record of not spending himself. Spending is one issue among many and not necessarily the most important if expanding the economy is to any extent mitigating some of the harmful effects of the spending...which it clearly does. (I still didn't like Trump's spending)
"I guess that pointing out Trump's many flaws and why those flaws concern me, is simply "trashing" him now. What a strange notion."
Uh...excuse me...you said pointing out Trump's many good points is "pimping" him now. The difference is that I don't ignore that his good moves outweighed his bad moves. In the aggregate, his was a really good and beneficially effective presidency and it is more likely than less we'd get just as good if not better.
You seem to want to believe that Trump is incapable of limiting or lowering spending simply because he spent more than we'd like the first time. But much of our troubles now is due to spending and as he's good with seeing problems and addressing them effectively, I'd say the smart money is on him reducing spending as well. That he spent last time might mean he won't spend this time as he wouldn't need to.
Hey Art,
I know that this is not relevant to your article, but I want you to see this. Is it just me or is this narrator full of crap?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxx5bgDisYc
I call 100% B.S. What is your verdict?
It'll be awhile before I can really check this video out. (Hopefully I won't forget...feel free to remind me.)
Post a Comment