The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on September 08, 2019, 01:45:06 pm
-
Sanford announces challenge to Trump
The Hill, Sep 8, 2019
Former South Carolina governor and congressman Mark Sanford said on Sunday that he will challenge President Trump in 2020 as a Republican.
"I’m here to tell you now that I am going to get in," he said on “Fox News Sunday.â€
Sanford said last week that he was focused on Hurricane Dorian would wait until after the storm had passed to announce his decision on a White House bid.
He previously said he would give himself until Labor Day to make a choice.
Since announcing his potential White House bid, the former lawmaker has visited New Hampshire and Iowa, causing further speculation that he would launch a campaign.
Sanford could face an uphill battle. The Republican parties in Kansas and Sanford’s home state of South Carolina on Saturday voted to cancel their GOP primaries.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460410-sanford-announces-challenge-to-trump
-
How nice. This washed up has-been has something to do now ... and a way to increase his retirement savings.
-
How nice. This washed up has-been has something to do now ... and a way to increase his retirement savings.
Too bad we have to make such a choice. A washed up has been vs. an idiot who treats the postion of POTUS like a reality TV show.
Shouldn't have happened, but that boat sailed 500 Tweets ago.
-
Sanford announces challenge to Trump
The Hill, Sep 8, 2019
Sanford said last week that he was focused on Hurricane Dorian would wait until after the storm had passed to announce his decision on a White House bid.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460410-sanford-announces-challenge-to-trump
I thought he was out hiking on the Appalachian Trail? This guy disappears more than Houdini.
-
I thought he was out hiking on the Appalachian Trail? This guy disappears more than Houdini.
A POTUS MIA on the Applachian Trail might be better than what we have now. Especially if that map veers toward Alabama. :silly:
-
The delusional qualities infect Republicans too! Sanford has as much chance as DeBlazio. ZERO!!!
-
I thought he was out hiking on the Appalachian Trail? This guy disappears more than Houdini.
He's a paragon of morality and character, for those who seem so concerned.
-
Never heard of the guy. The only Sanford that I remember is Fred.
-
Former governor and freedom caucus member who was targeted by Trump ... he then lost the primary to a trumpkin, who then lost a long-held GOP seat to a dem.
-
Jack@$$
-
Who knew the path to the Presidency runs down a path on the Appalachian trail with a naked lady?
-
Former governor and freedom caucus member who was targeted by Trump ... he then lost the primary to a trumpkin, who then lost a long-held GOP seat to a dem.
Fred would call this particular Sanford a big dummy.
-
Former governor and freedom caucus member who was targeted by Trump ... he then lost the primary to a trumpkin, who then lost a long-held GOP seat to a dem.
Sanford stepped on his Johnson and ruined it for any Pubbie in that election. Hardly something "Trumpkins" can be blamed for...but go on ahead. There will be applause.
-
More jokers. Yay!
-
How to split the anti-Trump vote and allow him to coast to another primary win in three easy steps.
Whoever ends up the opposition candidate, we need to settle on ONE.
-
Donald Trump Mocks ‘Loser’ Primary Challenger Mark Sanford for Appalachian Trail Scandal
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/09/donald-trump-mocks-loser-primary-challenger-mark-sanford-for-appalachian-trail-scandal/ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/09/donald-trump-mocks-loser-primary-challenger-mark-sanford-for-appalachian-trail-scandal/)
-
He's a paragon of morality and character, for those who seem so concerned.
For those who actually ARE concerned, and don't just "seem" concerned, he's no better than the man he's challenging.
But you'll be glad to know that the pseudo-religious Liberty University is mocking Sanford's morality while dismissing Trump's.
NeverTrump Adulterer Announces Primary Challenge for 2020 (http://NeverTrump Adulterer Announces Primary Challenge for 2020)
-
How to split the anti-Trump vote and allow him to coast to another primary win in three easy steps.
Whoever ends up the opposition candidate, we need to settle on ONE.
And it's certainly not THIS guy. **nononono*
-
Sorry, but I'll pass on the three jokers who is challenging Trump. They are not serious.
-
I've been a fan of Sanford's for years, back when Trump was a New York liberal. A lifetime ACU rating of 92 and a proven record as a dogged fiscal conservative is good enough for me.
Count me in. We cannot retain the Presidency and the Senate with Trump as our nominee. I will not stand idly by and be a sycophant.
-
I've been a fan of Sanford's for years, back when Trump was a New York liberal. Count me in. We cannot retain the Presidency and the Senate with Trump as our nominee. I will not stand idly by and be a sycophant.
What ever. Pick a loser... back a loser. Nice job Jazzy
-
What ever. Pick a loser... back a loser.
Sadly that is the case with both Trump and Sanford.
-
I've been a fan of Sanford's for years, back when Trump was a New York liberal. A lifetime ACU rating of 92 and a proven record as a dogged fiscal conservative is good enough for me.
Count me in. We cannot retain the Presidency and the Senate with Trump as our nominee. I will not stand idly by and be a sycophant.
Do you think Sanford actually has a realistic shot at doing anything other than giving the Democrats raw material for their ad campaign against Trump?
-
Good (winning) political judgment demands situational awareness.
-
Sanford will be gone quickly. He will not have the funds to go very far, unless Soros begins funding him.
And Jazz, you must buy in to this media nonsense with their rigged polls, etc. Trump will win by a landslide. He is gaining in all the demographics that typically go to the Democommies. I worked in the media for a number of years, and the angle they take is directed tied to WHO owns their network, publication, etc, and they no longer adhere to any journalistic standard.
Trump gets 28-40 Electoral states. And that is the only metric that matters.
-
Do you think Sanford actually has a realistic shot at doing anything other than giving the Democrats raw material for their ad campaign against Trump?
I refuse to be afraid. I refuse to face another choice like I had last time. I gave Trump every benefit of the doubt, especially in the knowledge that the GOP controlled Congress. .
Trump refused to grow, refused to become the leader of anyone besides his own faction. And now we are facing disaster, with socialists banging on the door and my own party seemingly consisting of sycophants.
I realize this is a long shot. But unless there is some opposition to this man, we are doomed. Sanford isn't perfect, but he's conservative and maybe he can inspire some soul searching and some GUTS.
-
I refuse to be afraid. I refuse to face another choice like I had last time. I gave Trump every benefit of the doubt, especially in the knowledge that the GOP controlled Congress. .
Trump refused to grow, refused to become the leader of anyone besides his own faction. And now we are facing disaster, with socialists banging on the door and my own party seemingly consisting of sycophants.
I realize this is a long shot. But unless there is some opposition to this man, we are doomed. Sanford isn't perfect, but he's conservative and maybe he can inspire some soul searching and some GUTS.
The fly in your so called "refusal" is you refuse to see the folly in your logic.
-
Sanford stepped on his Johnson and ruined it for any Pubbie in that election. Hardly something "Trumpkins" can be blamed for...but go on ahead. There will be applause.
Isn't the problem his criticism of Trump, rather than anything else? He won the 2016 election by 22 points. In fact, he had never lost an election. Today's GOP stands for nothing other than Trump promotion. It's evident in all of the junk mail I receive.
-
I refuse to be afraid. I refuse to face another choice like I had last time. I gave Trump every benefit of the doubt, especially in the knowledge that the GOP controlled Congress. .
Trump refused to grow, refused to become the leader of anyone besides his own faction. And now we are facing disaster, with socialists banging on the door and my own party seemingly consisting of sycophants.
I realize this is a long shot. But unless there is some opposition to this man, we are doomed. Sanford isn't perfect, but he's conservative and maybe he can inspire some soul searching and some GUTS.
Jazz, I generally think highly of your reasoning and perception...but you are stuck functioning in some sort of "wishful" thinking paradigm. You want to oppose the Dems but you want a "nice guy" to lead the fight...but we've tried that...and got crushed (see Bush 1 and 2 in office and Romney getting crushed by Obama).
Opposing Trump isn't the enemy of victory for the GOP in 2020, on the contrary, supporting him is the only realistic hope and the only real force standing between this country and Dem Socialist hegemony. Neither is it some brave overcoming of your fears to oppose him by supporting a putz like Sanford...rather...you're giving in to a fear created by a media that is LIVID that Trump not only stands up to them, he actually has the audacity to punch back against their intended narratives.
What "dooms" the right isn't President Trump, its disunity and buying into a garbage media narrative that declares Trump only "plays to his own faction" or that Republicans are "sycophants"....where was that narrative when Obama played hard and ONLY to his radical Left while media Dems opined about having a "thrill" up their leg? Sycophantism and playing to the fringe is what the Dems do...its absolutely not what conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters have been doing.
The truth is that Trump has governed directly from the center-right, much to the chagrin of some conservatives right here on this board. He's made improved trade deals, turned the economy around and launched it into the stratosphere, and restored America's image from punching bag to power player. He stumbles sometimes, can be erratic in negotiations...thought I think much of that is just tactics...and makes boorish comments about those who make boorish comments about him. Its messy...fighting back often is...and what he does IS FIGHT BACK. You seem to want to bring back the wilting flowers and faux compassionate weenies of the Bush/Romney/McCain wing....which WOULD be disastrous for Republicans in the 2020 election and even more disastrous for the nation.
You need to return that purchase you made from the media...the one in which you've "bought" THEIR framing of both Trump and his supporters on the right and in the center.
-
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ccb0ea944c3978b458b99f546c37b070ef482858/c=294-0-4902-3465&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/2015/08/09/IAGroup/DesMoines/635747275252406315-0307-AG-SUMMIT-26.jpg)
WHOA there Mark, I don't think you've thought this out
-
. . . supporting a putz like Sanford
You won't change my mind with cheap shots like that. I've followed Sanford's career for years; his movement conservative credentials are solid. This is not a gadfly like Weld.
But I am convinced that conservatives and others who see things as I do - that Trump is a distraction that is greasing the skids for a socialist takeover - need a vehicle to express that view within the context of the Republican party. A GOP that rolls over to the king's madness is not a party that can survive the reckoning that's coming.
-
Trump supporters once told me they didnt need my vote to win. This was back in 2016. Have things changed so much that they are worried about some competition?
I don't particularly care for Sanford and won't vote for him. But I believe that if he or anyone else wants to challenge Trump for the nomination, they should be allowed to do so.
I expect Trump will get the Republican nomination anyway. What he should be concerned about is the general election in November, 2020.
-
Trump supporters once told me they didnt need my vote to win. This was back in 2016. Have things changed so much that they are worried about some competition?
I don't particularly care for Sanford and won't vote for him. But I believe that if he or anyone else wants to challenge Trump for the nomination, they should be allowed to do so.
I expect Trump will get the Republican nomination anyway. What he should be concerned about is the general election in November, 2020.
One thing I didn't expect was that Trump would lie as much as Obama. Trump's a POS, and sadly we are stuck with him.
-
Who knew the path to the Presidency runs down a path on the Appalachian trail with a naked lady?
It was a flaming flamingo dancer, on the Tallahassee Trail.
Trump mocks Sanford’s affair with ‘Flaming Dancer’ in Argentina
https://nypost.com/2019/09/09/trump-mocks-sanfords-affair-with-flaming-dancer-in-argentina/amp/
-
One thing I didn't expect was that Trump would lie as much as Obama. Trump's a POS, and sadly we are stuck with him.
Trump and Obama are alike in some ways. Lying is just one of them. What gets me is how some who condemned Obama for lying about, say, Obamacare, are ok with Trump's lies because "all politicians lie." By the way, these same people told me Trump wasn't a politician. LOL
Maybe he will win a second term, but I am not "stuck with him" when it comes time to vote. Ted Cruz once advised voters to vote their conscience. My conscience will not allow me to vote for Trump.
-
Trump and Obama are alike in some ways. Lying is just one of them. What gets me is how some who condemned Obama for lying about, say, Obamacare, are ok with Trump's lies because "all politicians lie." By the way, these same people told me Trump wasn't a politician. LOL
Maybe he will win a second term, but I am not "stuck with him" when it comes time to vote. Ted Cruz once advised voters to vote their conscience. My conscience will not allow me to vote for Trump.
So be specific, what lies are you referring to? To be clear, simply being wrong or unable to accomplish a campaign goal is not a lie. I honestly have no idea what "lies" you are talking about.
-
Trump and Obama are alike in some ways. Lying is just one of them. What gets me is how some who condemned Obama for lying about, say, Obamacare, are ok with Trump's lies because "all politicians lie." By the way, these same people told me Trump wasn't a politician. LOL
Maybe he will win a second term, but I am not "stuck with him" when it comes time to vote. Ted Cruz once advised voters to vote their conscience. My conscience will not allow me to vote for Trump.
But your conscience is OK with letting a true Socialist like Elizabeth Warren...and all her attending loony Left entourage from AOC to Hillary to Ilhan Omar...take over the nation. If your action or inaction facilitates that outcome...yikes...as the Beatles said "you're gonna carry the weight a long time".
Just gonna say, the compass on your morality pole seems to be a bit broken.
-
So be specific, what lies are you referring to? To be clear, simply being wrong or unable to accomplish a campaign goal is not a lie. I honestly have no idea what "lies" you are talking about.
Same here. I’ve yet to hear anything specific from the perpetual critics, nor can I recall a “lie†said by the president. None.
-
Same here. I’ve yet to hear anything specific from the perpetual critics, nor can I recall a “lie†said by the president. None.
They generally come up with some baloney like "he promised a wall and we don't have one"...something he's fought tooth and nail for from day one...and pretend that that is a lie. If someone is dumb enough to claim that every campaign goal not achieved is a lie...no matter how hard the President has fought to achieve them in the face of reticent RINO's and obstructive Dems...well...that generally makes them a mindless NeverTrumper.
-
It was a flaming flamingo dancer, on the Tallahassee Trail.
Trump mocks Sanford’s affair with ‘Flaming Dancer’ in Argentina
https://nypost.com/2019/09/09/trump-mocks-sanfords-affair-with-flaming-dancer-in-argentina/amp/
Do you sit in the front row to watch a Comedian and correct his jokes, too?
-
But your conscience is OK with letting a true Socialist like Elizabeth Warren...and all her attending loony Left entourage from AOC to Hillary to Ilhan Omar...take over the nation. If your action or inaction facilitates that outcome...yikes...as the Beatles said "you're gonna carry the weight a long time".
Just gonna say, the compass on your morality pole seems to be a bit broken.
I've been waiting for the emergence of illogical points like yours. For me, the perfect response comes from my favorite novel, Atlas Shrugged:
Look at yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself whether I would ever think my moral stature is at the mercy of your actions.
How is my vote not going to Trump (not a given yet BTW) letting a true Socialist like Elizabeth Warren "take over the nation"? Even if I vote for Trump, the possibility exists that Trump will lose next year, primarily because he has acted like a complete jerk in office, and failed to follow through on his campaign promises.
He has shown little aptitude or desire for broadening his base of support, and has taken no responsibility for many of the unforced errors he's committed along the way.
A part of me longs for revolution coming sooner, rather than later. My children (and grandson), nieces and nephews are hearing me talk about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. I lay it out for them, and tell them they're the ones that are going to have to engage in the battles to come with their peers.
I borrow a line from Francisco d'Anconia when he first encountered Hank Rearden: (paraphrased)
I am giving you the words you will need for the time you will need them.
I used the same line for many years, while teaching Old Testament to 6th graders in my parish. I hesitate to use the word "ammunition", I prefer to call it enhancing their ability to respond to those who would seek to denigrate their faith.
-
But your conscience is OK with letting a true Socialist like Elizabeth Warren...and all her attending loony Left entourage from AOC to Hillary to Ilhan Omar...take over the nation. If your action or inaction facilitates that outcome...yikes...as the Beatles said "you're gonna carry the weight a long time".
Just gonna say, the compass on your morality pole seems to be a bit broken.
"Morality pole" used in the same thought with Donald Trump...that's funny!
:rolling:
-
How is my vote not going to Trump (not a given yet BTW) letting a true Socialist like Elizabeth Warren "take over the nation"? Even if I vote for Trump, the possibility exists that Trump will lose next year...
Because every vote in his favor decreases the odds...however infinitesmally...of an Elizabeth Warren/Socialist takeover. A takeover, I might add, that is likely irreversible given the tyrannical bent of Socialism and its media backers. And please don't quote Ayn Rand while you argue and act to support the rise of socialism...President Trump is the nearest thing to John Galt that we've had in the White House since Reagan (his core imperative is that of letting loose capitalism from its regulatory restraints). I've read Atlas shrugged many times and your misuse of that great work is horrific.
We are in a binary struggle between the forces of Socialism and group-think led by the Warren crowd...and the forces of Capitalism and free thought led by President Trump (And yes, he's not the perfect standard bearer we all deserve...but he IS the ONLY standard bearer we have...no one else on the right has the moxy, the audacity, the speech making talent, and the street fighting will to fight this fight and win.
You are arguing that the moral thing to do is to play Switzerland at a time when the world's future will be decided by those who fight...not by those who's moral narcissism leads them to sit on the sidelines and support Karl Schenk whilst the world around them burns. Every day you sit on the sideline supporting some butthurt fool like Sanford or other GOP peon with zero chance of fighting back the Socialist tide...you are complicit in the rise of that tide.
-
I realize this is a long shot. But unless there is some opposition to this man, we are doomed. Sanford isn't perfect, but he's conservative and maybe he can inspire some soul searching and some GUTS.
@Jazzhead
I had thought your priority was winning the White House. Do you honestly believe that Sanford has a better chance of winning the Presidency than does Trump? Or have you now shifted to the point where Trump himself is unacceptable, so you'd rather have a worse chance of winning but with a "better" Republican?
-
How is my vote not going to Trump (not a given yet BTW) letting a true Socialist like Elizabeth Warren "take over the nation"? Even if I vote for Trump, the possibility exists that Trump will lose next year...
Because every vote in his favor decreases the odds...however infinitesmally...of an Elizabeth Warren/Socialist takeover. A takeover, I might add, that is likely irreversible given the tyrannical bent of Socialism and its media backers. And please don't quote Ayn Rand while you argue and act to support the rise of socialism...President Trump is the nearest thing to John Galt that we've had in the White House since Reagan (his core imperative is that of letting loose capitalism from its regulatory restraints). I've read Atlas shrugged many times and your misuse of that great work is horrific.
We are in a binary struggle between the forces of Socialism and group-think led by the Warren crowd...and the forces of Capitalism and free thought led by President Trump (And yes, he's not the perfect standard bearer we all deserve...but he IS the ONLY standard bearer we have...no one else on the right has the moxy, the audacity, the speech making talent, and the street fighting will to fight this fight and win.
You are arguing that the moral thing to do is to play Switzerland at a time when the world's future will be decided by those who fight...not by those who's moral narcissism leads them to sit on the sidelines and support Karl Schenk whilst the world around them burns. Every day you sit on the sideline supporting some butthurt fool like Sanford or other GOP peon with zero chance of fighting back the Socialist tide...you are complicit in the rise of that tide.
@Mesaclone
Honestly, as many good things as there are about Atlas Shrugged, I've often though it sends an absolutely terrible political message. It supports the myth that the best path to victory is basically just withdrawing so the bad guys "win", letting them enact destructive policies and destroy the country, and then rebuilding from the wreckage. That's what Galt and the rest of them advocated. It gives moral sanction, even moral plaudits, to those who advocate losing elections because your candidate is insufficiently pure.
You're making the Hank Rearden argument, though given our situation, and our context, I'd agree that's the right approach.
-
Do you sit in the front row to watch a Comedian and correct his jokes, too?
He’s made way too many other malapropisms to think this was a joke. Besides, the president is not supposed to be a vaudeville act.
-
One thing I didn't expect was that Trump would lie as much as Obama. Trump's a POS, and sadly we are stuck with him.
Oh FFS. How anyone could compare Marxist Obama's deliberate lies, which essentially equated to helping to destroy the nation by openly siding with Muslim terrorist nations and entities..... to anything Trump has said (or promised but couldn't deliver) is beyond me. With all due respect, catfish.... I just don't get the correlation. Your discernment is quite skewed, IMO. JS....
-
He’s made way too many other malapropisms to think this was a joke. Besides, the president is not supposed to be a vaudeville act.
The opposition party... ie the radical leftist DemocRats... aren't supposed to be various and sundry variations of moronic clowns either. Guess which came first. And funny how that what you call "vaudeville act" has such high approval ratings amongst 'most' legal American citizens. Perhaps they don't have the same opinion as you do about the job Trump is doing. Much to your chagrin, no doubt.
-
He’s made way too many other malapropisms to think this was a joke. Besides, the president is not supposed to be a vaudeville act.
What I posted, that your reply was to, was closer to a vaudeville act than to a serious comment. :tongue2:
-
@Jazzhead
I had thought your priority was winning the White House. Do you honestly believe that Sanford has a better chance of winning the Presidency than does Trump? Or have you now shifted to the point where Trump himself is unacceptable, so you'd rather have a worse chance of winning but with a "better" Republican?
Our friend does that to set himself up as being morally above the fray. It's more about preening than it is about policy.
-
What I posted, that your reply was to, was closer to a vaudeville act than to a serious comment. :tongue2:
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/zky3b97ndPXdthjthiiDmQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yMjU7dz0zMDA-/https://68.media.tumblr.com/2888549a12b1fb133444a64815946583/tumblr_nfr7zt2fkX1rb5ecao7_r1_400.gif.cf.gif)
-
Our friend does that to set himself up as being morally above the fray. It's more about preening than it is about policy.
I suspect that it also has a lot to do with that ROLCON factor. :smokin:
-
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/zky3b97ndPXdthjthiiDmQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yMjU7dz0zMDA-/https://68.media.tumblr.com/2888549a12b1fb133444a64815946583/tumblr_nfr7zt2fkX1rb5ecao7_r1_400.gif.cf.gif)
There ya go! :laugh:
-
I suspect that it also has a lot to do with that ROLCON factor. :smokin:
Okay I'll bite, what is the ROLCON factor
-
So be specific, what lies are you referring to? To be clear, simply being wrong or unable to accomplish a campaign goal is not a lie. I honestly have no idea what "lies" you are talking about.
Geez, just yesterday he claimed he had a 90% approval rqting among GOP voters. A Bald Faced Lie!!!!
-
@Mesaclone
Honestly, as many good things as there are about Atlas Shrugged, I've often though it sends an absolutely terrible political message. It supports the myth that the best path to victory is basically just withdrawing so the bad guys "win", letting them enact destructive policies and destroy the country, and then rebuilding from the wreckage. That's what Galt and the rest of them advocated. It gives moral sanction, even moral plaudits, to those who advocate losing elections because your candidate is insufficiently pure.
You're making the Hank Rearden argument, though given our situation, and our context, I'd agree that's the right approach.
Correct...good breakdown. Unintentionally I WAS making the Hank Rearden argument...thanks for pointing that out. As for the "withdraw and let it collapse" Galt approach...you are right that all too many conservatives think that is actually a solution to the problem we face. Whilst that may work in a novel, in reality society would have ultimately forced its way into the Galtian mountain refuge and crushed its freedom and capitalism. Socialists do not brook defiance...nor allow refuges of free thought/markets to exist.
If we don't defeat them now, they will be coming for all of us in time and there will be no refuge.
-
Okay I'll bite, what is the ROLCON factor
This could be it...
ROLCON: ROLeplay as CONservatives
https://www.abbreviations.com/ROLCON (https://www.abbreviations.com/ROLCON)
-
the president is not supposed to be a vaudeville act.
IKR???
:beer:
-
Geez, just yesterday he claimed he had a 90% approval rqting among GOP voters. A Bald Faced Lie!!!!
GOP approval for President Trump:
Gallup July 1-12 90%
Gallup June 19-30 90%
Gallup Feb-May 87-91%
This week is was at 88% which is well within the margin of error for a 90% approval rate...Trump's high approval within the GOP on Gallup has been incredibly consistent at or near that 90% rate.
If you're looking for a liar you may want to find a mirror.
Just another example of how NeverTrumpism is born of ignorance...and a willingness to buy into false media narratives. Wake up.
-
Our friend does that to set himself up as being morally above the fray. It's more about preening than it is about policy.
There's a lot of that going on here.
-
He’s made way too many other malapropisms to think this was a joke. Besides, the president is not supposed to be a vaudeville act.
And Conservatives are supposed to be too smart to fall for that kind of media narrative...yet you seem to have "hooked, lined and sinkered" it.
-
There's a lot of that going on here.
I'm probably guilty of that sometimes myself. :whistle:
-
@Jazzhead Do you honestly believe that Sanford has a better chance of winning the Presidency than does Trump?
Putting aside the obvious difficulty of securing the nomination, yes, I believe that Sanford has a better chance of retaining the White House against the current crop of Dems running on their platform of TDS and socialism. The reason is simple - the best way to defeat the socialist tide is to hone the kind of effective message that cannot now be heard above the media's obsession with Trump-the-mad-king.
Do you have issues with Sanford's conservative credentials, or are you suggesting that a conservative has no chance of winning and we instead need a big-government populist/demagogue?
-
@Mesaclone
“...and a willingness to buy into false media narrativesâ€
That part is astounding to me.
For decades conservatives and Republicans complained that the media was on the Democrats side of every issue. We were told reporters were just “reporting the facts,â€Most people agree with the New York Times editorials,†“journalists are unbiased observers,†“It’s just your imagination.â€
Along comes Trump—whom they hate—and off these NeverTrumpers go chasing every red-dot laser the media points. Fools.
-
I'm probably guilty of that sometimes myself. :whistle:
Not that I've ever noticed.
-
Who knew the path to the Presidency runs down a path on the Appalachian trail with a naked lady?
Naked?
-
There's a lot of that going on here.
(https://www.cardcow.com/images/set303/card00749_fr.jpg)
-
Do you have issues with Sanford's conservative credentials, or are you suggesting that a conservative has no chance of winning and we instead need a big-government populist/demagogue?
First, we don't have a "mad King" in the White House...that's a Leftist media meme, not reality.
Second, we already have a President governing with conservative policies...at least conservative in the Reagan sense if not the theoretical purity that some NT's would hold him to.
Finally, this isn't about Sanford's credentials...the man has absolutely zero chance of ever winning a primary or becoming president. Zero. So the ONLY thing his campaign can do is undermine the ONE man who DOES have a chance to defeat the Left in this election.
-
Naked?
Not literally, I suppose, but neither was the reference to the Appalachian Trail. rrthree
It was an attempt at humor that failed....
-
First, we don't have a "mad King" in the White House...that's a Leftist media meme, not reality.
Second, we already have a President governing with conservative policies...at least conservative in the Reagan sense if not the theoretical purity that some NT's would hold him to.
Finally, this isn't about Sanford's credentials...the man has absolutely zero chance of ever winning a primary or becoming president. Zero. So the ONLY thing his campaign can do is undermine the ONE man who DOES have a chance to defeat the Left in this election.
If Sanford was serious about wanting the job, he'd be looking at 2024 when there won't be a Republican Incumbent. This may very well be what he's trying to do, by getting the name out there now.
-
(https://www.cardcow.com/images/set303/card00749_fr.jpg)
But, they are very pretty.
-
If Sanford was serious about wanting the job, he'd be looking at 2024 when there won't be a Republican Incumbent. This may very well be what he's trying to do, by getting the name out there now.
Might be some of that, but I'd go with the more simple and obvious reason. Hates Trump who likely cost him re-election and made fun of him. Hoping to get even.
-
Putting aside the obvious difficulty of securing the nomination, yes, I believe that Sanford has a better chance of retaining the White House against the current crop of Dems running on their platform of TDS and socialism. The reason is simple - the best way to defeat the socialist tide is to hone the kind of effective message that cannot now be heard above the media's obsession with Trump-the-mad-king.
In a vacuum, that is probably correct. But we're not in a vacuum. I also don't think you can put aside the difficulty of securing the nomination. That alone is basically a 0% chance, so you'd have to ask yourself what are the likely side effects of a contested nomination, likely including a lot of very harsh criticism from another Republican. Do you believe that would help or hurt Trump's chances in the general election should he (overwhelmingly likely) win the nomination?
Also, I thought (and I apologize if I'm misremembering) that you previously acknowledged any Republican running against Trump would either be doomed to lose the nomination, or even if successful, would split the party and guarantee a Democrat victory in the general election. So, your hope was that someone like McConnell would convince Trump not to run, and then someone like Haley would step forward with Trump's endorsement. But now, you seem to be supporting an antagonistic, contested run against Trump by another Republican. That seems like something of a 180 to me. Or am I wrong about that? I believe the initial point was correct -- that if by some miracle a primary challenge succeeded, the mass of Trump supporters would be so alienated that 2020 would be a massive landslide up and down the ticket.
Do you have issues with Sanford's conservative credentials, or are you suggesting that a conservative has no chance of winning and we instead need a big-government populist/demagogue?
Leaving aside my general opposition to a primary challenge that I described above, Sanford in particular is a terrible candidate. Policy wise, I really like him. But the whole Appalachian Trail/cheat on your wife with foreign-born mistress/lie about your location and actually be out of the country and unreachable while governor is a political death sentence. I think Republican women might even turn on him for that series of actions.
Of course, pro-Democrat media rags like the Washington Post will tout his credentials as a legitimate challenger to Trump, and watch with glee if by miracle he's successful and the party splinters. They'd then turn on him in a heartbeat and absolutely destroy him in the general election.
He might actually be the most unelectable guy we could possibly run.
@Jazzhead
-
In a vacuum, that is probably correct. But we're not in a vacuum. I also don't think you can put aside the difficulty of securing the nomination. That alone is basically a 0% chance, so you'd have to ask yourself what are the likely side effects of a contested nomination, likely including a lot of very harsh criticism from another Republican. Do you believe that would help or hurt Trump's chances in the general election should he (overwhelmingly likely) win the nomination?
Also, I thought (and I apologize if I'm misremembering) that you previously acknowledged any Republican running against Trump would either be doomed to lose the nomination, or even if successful, would split the party and guarantee a Democrat victory in the general election. So, your hope was that someone like McConnell would convince Trump not to run, and then someone like Haley would step forward with Trump's endorsement. But now, you seem to be supporting an antagonistic, contested run against Trump by another Republican. That seems like something of a 180 to me. Or am I wrong about that? I believe the initial point was correct -- that if by some miracle a primary challenge succeeded, the mass of Trump supporters would be so alienated that 2020 would be a massive landslide up and down the ticket.
Leaving aside my general opposition to a primary challenge that I described above, Sanford in particular is a terrible candidate. Policy wise, I really like him. But the whole Appalachian Trail/cheat on your wife with foreign-born mistress/lie about your location and actually be out of the country and unreachable while governor is a political death sentence. I think Republican women might even turn on him for that series of actions.
Of course, pro-Democrat media rags like the Washington Post will tout his credentials as a legitimate challenger to Trump, and watch with glee if by miracle he's successful and the party splinters. They'd then turn on him in a heartbeat and absolutely destroy him in the general election.
He might actually be the most unelectable guy we could possibly run.
@Jazzhead
The one thing that nearly sank the Trump campaign in 2016 was the acrimonious split between he and the Cruz camp. You still see some residual evidence of that feud today.
Its likely many Cruz people stayed home election night, but that split has pretty much since evaporated, the party is relatively united. And that spells disaster for those who want Trump out.
With these mickey mouse primary challenges they're (whomever they are) seeking to re-create that division, IMHO.
-
Mar Sanford:
""It is my personal view that the largest proclamation of one's faith ought to be in how one lives his life."[28]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford
-
The one thing that nearly sank the Trump campaign in 2016 was the acrimonious split between he and the Cruz camp. You still see some residual evidence of that feud today.
Its likely many Cruz people stayed home election night, but that split has pretty much since evaporated, the party is relatively united. And that spells disaster for those who want Trump out.
With these mickey mouse primary challenges they're (whomever they are) seeking to re-create that division, IMHO.
Precisely.... the functional equivalent of that piece of filth McMuffin in 2016.
-
Mar Sanford:
""It is my personal view that the largest proclamation of one's faith ought to be in how one lives his life."[28]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford
Quote from 2008. That one sure withstood the test of time.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin : Thanks for your post.
My motivation is solely to prevent a Democratic victory, and save the GOP Senate. Unfortunately, we come from different initial premises. I do not think, realistically, that Trump can win re-election, and you do. Many of his policies I support, and I certainly want the tide of conservative judges to continue. But the man is fatally flawed - he cares only but to appeal to his own faction. And the cumulative weight of criticism - deserved or not - of his crude, impulsive approach to governance is leaving a mark. He won as a reaction to a worse choice. The same impulse will motivate the voters this time around too.
You are correct that my desired outcome is for someone with gravitas like Mitch to advise him to not run for reelection. But sometimes it takes a focusing of the mind to listen to wise counsel. Sanford, I think, can help focus Trump's mind, by running a positive campaign that nevertheless speaks hard truths about the stakes. To be successful, he must use Cruz's fundamental appeal - that each and every one of us in the GOP is bound by duty to party and country to vote in his or her GOP primary as our conscience dictates.
-
Precisely.... the functional equivalent of that piece of filth McMuffin in 2016.
They hope Sanford does better than ol’ 4% Bob Kasich.
-
Quote from 2008. That one sure withstood the test of time.
He was in a loveless, essentially arranged marriage and was blinded by love, not the sort of lust that made Trump consort with prostitutes.
I don't defend what he did, but he was upfront about it and apologized. And he appears to have taken the lesson of learning from, and not repeating, his sins.
And I as a person raised in the Christian tradition forgive him. Why do you seek to poke a penitent man in the eye while advocating for a man of worse marital sin?
-
He was in a loveless, essentially arranged marriage and was blinded by love, not the sort of lust that made Trump consort with prostitutes.
I don't defend what he did, but he was upfront about it and apologized. And he appears to have taken the lesson of learning from, and not repeating, his sins.
And I as a person raised in the Christian tradition forgive him. Why do you seek to poke a penitent man in the eye while advocating for a man of worse marital sin?
Good grief you guys are a real scream.
-
Good grief you guys are a real scream.
And you defend Trump's morality? Take some advice - don't debase yourself.
-
And you defend Trump's morality? Take some advice - don't debase yourself.
You’re as transparent as they come, Jazzhead.
-
He was in a loveless, essentially arranged marriage and was blinded by love, not the sort of lust that made Trump consort with prostitutes.
I don't defend what he did, but he was upfront about it and apologized. And he appears to have taken the lesson of learning from, and not repeating, his sins.
And I as a person raised in the Christian tradition forgive him. Why do you seek to poke a penitent man in the eye while advocating for a man of worse marital sin?
The infidelity can be excused, but that was not my big problem with what went down. He ditched his constituency, as Governor, and went off-grid to pursue the Mistress. That is unforgivable, and not something I want to see happen with a President.
-
And you defend Trump's morality? Take some advice - don't debase yourself.
Actually... you DID defend what he did. And then went on to lecture to someone ELSE about morality.
I don't defend what he did, but he was upfront about it and apologized. And he appears to have taken the lesson of learning from, and not repeating, his sins.
Friggin hilarious!
Apparently some adulterers are more equal than other adulterers. :whistle:
-
The infidelity can be excused, but that was not my big problem with what went down. He ditched his constituency, as Governor, and went off-grid to pursue the Mistress. That is unforgivable, and not something I want to see happen with a President.
And he lied about where he was going. Yet this guy is supposedly more trustworthy than Trump? I don't see how.
-
Looking for pointers to use the next time I cheat on my GF.
-
Looking for pointers to use the next time I cheat on my GF.
Just tell her you're going hiking in the mountains. It'll work. But, better if you are married and have little kids.
-
According to this poll (https://theweek.com/speedreads/864097/6-democratic-candidates-are-beating-trump-new-texas-poll) now posted prominently on Drudge, Trump loses to six Democrat presidential contenders IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
It is time to come to grips with reality, folks. We can no longer be willfully blind in the face of looming disaster. Sanford is the sort of conservative we all used to rally around. Back before the GOP became the supine party of Trump.
-
According to this poll (https://theweek.com/speedreads/864097/6-democratic-candidates-are-beating-trump-new-texas-poll) now posted prominently on Drudge, Trump loses to six Democrat presidential contenders IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
It is time to come to grips with reality, folks. We can no longer be willfully blind in the face of looming disaster. Sanford is the sort of conservative we all used to rally around. Back before the GOP became the supine party of Trump.
President Hillary approves of your "message".
:silly: :silly: :silly:
-
@Maj. Bill Martin : Thanks for your post.
Unfortunately, we come from different initial premises. I do not think, realistically, that Trump can win re-election, and you do.
Realistically, I believe that whatever Trump's chances are, they are orders of magnitude greater than this effort by Sanford, whose only likely accomplishment will be to piss off at least 75% of GOP voters, and perhaps lead to massive general election boycotts of GOP candidates that will crush our hopes for Congress if, by some miracle, Sanford actually won the primary.
but again realistically, I see the likelihood of Sanford actually beating Trump in the primary as less than 1%. So, I view most of those who would support his candidacy as being motivated primarily by a desire to keep Trump from being re-elected, rather than a desire to win in November.
@Jazzhead
-
President Hillary approves of your "message".
:silly: :silly: :silly:
We must burn down the village in order to save it.
-
We must burn down the village in order to save it.
Yep.
-
Realistically, I believe that whatever Trump's chances are, they are orders of magnitude greater than this effort by Sanford, whose only likely accomplishment will be to piss off at least 75% of GOP voters, and perhaps lead to massive general election boycotts of GOP candidates that will crush our hopes for Congress if, by some miracle, Sanford actually won the primary.
but again realistically, I see the likelihood of Sanford actually beating Trump in the primary as less than 1%. So, I view most of those who would support his candidacy as being motivated primarily by a desire to keep Trump from being re-elected, rather than a desire to win in November.
@Jazzhead
This ^ ^ is it exactly. They would rather lose to the rats (for "some" reason)....
than have Trump win.
-
So, I view most of those who would support his candidacy as being motivated primarily by a desire to keep Trump from being re-elected, rather than a desire to win in November.
You have my motivation bass-ackward. I want to prevent a Democratic victory, which I believe is inevitable if Trump is the nominee. Given that belief (which I think is well founded: a poll posted on Drudge this morning says that Trump loses to six Democratic challengers IN THE STATE OF TEXAS), I want to advance the ball on convincing Trump to step down as the nominee, a la LBJ. I think a credible opposition candidate who can expose Trump's weaknesses within the GOP can be a means to that end. I want Sanford to play the role of Eugene McCarthy.
If Trump is the nominee, we lose, and we lose the Senate besides. It's not about his policies, it is about his issues as a leader. That is reality as I see it. I understand that you feel differently. And because my reality sucks, I want to change it.
@Maj. Bill Martin
-
This ^ ^ is it exactly. They would rather lose to the rats (for "some" reason)....
than have Trump win.
No. I am seeking a way out of the Kobayashi Maru.
-
This ^ ^ is it exactly. They would rather lose to the rats (for "some" reason)....
than have Trump win.
Reminds me of when the mainstream media expresses 'concern' for the direction of the Republican party and helpfully suggests a course of action they believe will 'save' them from electoral disaster.
-
No. I am seeking a way out of the Kobayashi Maru.
Fortunately, Captain Kirk already resides in the White House and has already rewritten the rules for campaigning...and for defeating the unwinnable scenario painted by "push-polls". He beat this scenario in 2016 and is the only Republican with a chance to do so again in 2020. You are right that he may lose, but you are wildly wrong in thinking there is another GOP candidate waiting in the wings who could do better.
-
This ^ ^ is it exactly. They would rather lose to the rats (for "some" reason)....
than have Trump win.
Or maybe we just don't see that much of a difference in the direction of our country with either one.
-
Or maybe we just don't see that much of a difference in the direction of our country with either one.
Then you need to get your eyes checked immediately. That's dangerously blind.
-
Or maybe we just don't see that much of a difference in the direction of our country with either one.
The facts are there. No one can force you to acknowledge them or like them. But they are there.
-
No. I am seeking a way out of the Kobayashi Maru.
You're delusional. And I mean that sincerely. :laugh:
Not voting for Trump, not voting at all, supporting some idiot like Sanford, etc... will all result in a leftist commiecrat win next year. THAT is the very definition of a "no win" scenario for all freedom-loving, America as founded-loving American patriots.
-
Or maybe we just don't see that much of a difference in the direction of our country with either one.
Nobody can realistically predict the future. But.... I do know one thing. A Trump win will at least stave off and delay our demise as a free nation. The CommieCrats are trying to destroy us from within. We all know their drill and the "why" behind it. Anyone that wouldn't be for that "delay" vs. the immediate destruction the radical leftist (commie) control would bring this nation is.... well...
I don't really have to spell it out... do I?
-
You have my motivation bass-ackward.
@Jazzhead
Actually, I was not putting you personally in the category of just wanting Trump to lose -- that's why I only said "most". I do believe you want a GOP victory. I just think that your belief that Sanford has a better chance -- primaries through general election -- of winning the Presidency than does Trump to be so counter-factual that very few people actually believe that. And all those who don't, but nevertheless support Sanford, are the ones I think are emotionally invested in a Trump loss. Again, that's not you.
I still don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of a Trump loss in November 2020. That is more than a year away, and a lot of stuff can happen between now and then to change the polls. We don't even know who the Democrat nominee is, and more importantly, the voters themselves have not yet been exposed to the full-throated leftist nutbaggery of someone like Warren. It isn't until her record and statements are fully vetted and publicized that we can have a truly informed opinion as to her prospects, regardless of what polls may say today.
I can understand (though I don't agree with) the idea that Trump is certain to lose the Presidency, so why not roll the dice to see if someone else can win? The problem with that is Congress. Trump may be a drag downticket, but at least the party will be more or less united in supporting him, and you'll get the 90% or so of Republicans who support him to turn out at the polls. That will contain the damage. But if Trump's supporters see the GOP politicos turning on Trump, I suspect you'd see large numbers of them sit home out of anger. That would lead not only to losing the Presidency with Sanford or whomever, but a crushing defeat for GOP congressional candidates. Alienating Trump supporters is the worst possible scenario for GOP congressional candidates in 2020.
A split party is the absolute worst scenario for 2020 -- why else do you believe the WaPo and other parts of the media are pushing for a GOP challenger to Trump? Do you really think they want a Republican to win in 2020?
-
But if Trump's supporters see the GOP politicos turning on Trump, I suspect you'd see large numbers of them sit home out of anger. That would lead not only to losing the Presidency with Sanford or whomever, but a crushing defeat for GOP congressional candidates.
You got that right. Given what we are facing in the other party I can't think of anything that would infuriate the base more than the party being perceived as sabotaging the incumbent. The GOP might as well turn out the lights & shutter the place.
-
No. I am seeking a way out of the Kobayashi Maru.
Pence could win as the incumbent...
-
Then you need to get your eyes checked immediately. That's dangerously blind.
No, it is true - There is no difference.
-
No, it is true - There is no difference.
Just because you say "no, you're wrong" doesn't make it so. Back it up if you're serious.
-
A split party is the absolute worst scenario for 2020 -- why else do you believe the WaPo and other parts of the media are pushing for a GOP challenger to Trump? Do you really think they want a Republican to win in 2020?
Hate to tell you scooter... But your party is already split.
-
Hate to tell you scooter... But your party is already split.
Damn right. Trump is sorely mistaken, and even lied that he had a 90% approval among GOP voters. I bet that number is closer to 50-50 among us "very conservative" faction.
-
Pence could win as the incumbent...
A naricissistic delusional Trump will never bow out for the best for the country.
-
Damn right. Trump is sorely mistaken, and even lied that he had a 90% approval among GOP voters. I bet that number is closer to 50-50 among us "very conservative" faction.
Doesn't matter... Even if it is roughly 80/20 like the polls I recall say, He can't take a 20% hit. Same with independents, where the lion's share of Conservatives now reside.
He BARELY got across the line against a divided dem party and their worst candidate ever.
Now Dems are in lockstep, guaranteed, and seething mad. It don't really matter who their candidate is, they friggin hate Tumpy. They WILL be out enmasse to vote hm out... Plain and simple.
-
A naricissistic delusional Trump will never bow out for the best for the country.
Unless he could be convinced that he would be likely to lose and his legacy destroyed. It is not uncommon for a business to pivot from one style of management to another as conditions change. Trump was elected as a change agent, and he's accomplished that. But now we need a conservation agent, who can preserve and extend those policy directions, in part by focusing the electorate on both the positive results of economic growth as well as the disaster should we elect a socialist. To do that, the distraction of the Trump reality show must end.
-
@Jazzhead
I still don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of a Trump loss in November 2020.
Of course I am not "absolutely certain". But what I'm paid to do is help my clients make decisions, based on sober analysis of the known facts and likely future conditions. I am not paid to dither while Rome burns because of my lack of "absolutely certainty".
I see a GOP being led by the nose by an erratic demagogue and afraid to state that the emperor has no clothes. We need a vehicle by which the GOP rank and file - not party elites who are covering their collective asses - can weigh in on whether the way ahead - and the avoidance of disaster - may require a change in leadership.
-
He BARELY got across the line against a divided dem party and their worst candidate ever.
Now Dems are in lockstep, guaranteed, and seething mad. It don't really matter who their candidate is, they friggin hate Tumpy. They WILL be out enmasse to vote hm out... Plain and simple.
Correct. And that is why we must react to the reality we face, not as we wish it would be. Trump is not going to win re-election, folks. The sooner we face that reality, the sooner we can decide to do something about it.
-
Doesn't matter... Even if it is roughly 80/20 like the polls I recall say, He can't take a 20% hit. Same with independents, where the lion's share of Conservatives now reside.
He BARELY got across the line against a divided dem party and their worst candidate ever.
Now Dems are in lockstep, guaranteed, and seething mad. It don't really matter who their candidate is, they friggin hate Tumpy. They WILL be out enmasse to vote hm out... Plain and simple.
And you're marching right along with them in "useful idiot" lockstep. There is dumb. Damn Dumb. And then there's conservatives who believe its worth having a crushing leftist electoral victory in order to force the GOP back towards "true conservatism". Dumb as a word can't even touch that kind of abject idiocy.
-
(https://northerntimes.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/8695820504_9168dcc2e6_k-750x375.jpg)
-
And then there's conservatives who believe its worth having a crushing leftist electoral victory in order to force the GOP back towards "true conservatism". Dumb as a word can't even touch that kind of abject idiocy.
Don't misrepresent what is being said. This is (certainly for me) all about preventing a Dem victory in 2020. Trump was the needed change agent in 2016, but he is not what is needed today. The task is to preserve his policy directions, not allow them to be swept away in a socialist tide made possible by perhaps irrational but still palpable hatred of the current President.
-
Correct. And that is why we must react to the reality we face, not as we wish it would be. Trump is not going to win re-election, folks. The sooner we face that reality, the sooner we can decide to do something about it.
Here's reality. President Trump is the 2020 GOP presidential candidate. There is zero chance of any other person filling that role. Zero. No primary will change that, he isn't "stepping down and endorsing" anyone. He IS running and he IS the GOP/Conservative candidate for 2020. Done deal. Over. Period.
So you and everyone else who doesn't want an uber-Socialist takeover of every branch of government better hope you are wrong in your assessment, and had best fight like hell to keep it from happening. The alternative is, literally, the end of conservatism as a political force in the United States.
-
Here's reality. President Trump is the 2020 GOP presidential candidate. There is zero chance of any other person filling that role. Zero. No primary will change that, he isn't "stepping down and endorsing" anyone. He IS running and he IS the GOP/Conservative candidate for 2020. Done deal. Over. Period.
So you and everyone else who doesn't want an uber-Socialist takeover of every branch of government better hope you are wrong in your assessment, and had best fight like hell to keep it from happening. The alternative is, literally, the end of conservatism as a political force in the United States.
I agree with your assessment of the stakes. And it is precisely because I agree that I must shout from the rooftops that a replacement for Trump must be found. LBJ didn't announce he wasn't running for re-election until late March of 1968. NOW is the time to begin the discussion about a replacement for Trump, and to begin to marshal an opposition.
In September of 1967 Eugene McCarthy was barely known. By March of 1968, he had won the New Hampshire primary and LBJ could see the handwriting on the wall.
-
Here's reality. President Trump is the 2020 GOP presidential candidate. There is zero chance of any other person filling that role. Zero. No primary will change that, he isn't "stepping down and endorsing" anyone. He IS running and he IS the GOP/Conservative candidate for 2020. Done deal. Over. Period.
So you and everyone else who doesn't want an uber-Socialist takeover of every branch of government better hope you are wrong in your assessment, and had best fight like hell to keep it from happening. The alternative is, literally, the end of conservatism as a political force in the United States.
Your respondent does not believe in the same "conservatism" you and I understand. The apex of his conservatism is not Reagan and Goldwater, it's Jack Kemp and John Kasich. Once that is understood, all of the ridiculous arguments and prognostications fall into place. Even the idiotic reference to a scene in an old Star Trek flick. "If we don't dump Trump our Starship will blow up."
-
And you're marching right along with them in "useful idiot" lockstep. There is dumb. Damn Dumb. And then there's conservatives who believe its worth having a crushing leftist electoral victory in order to force the GOP back towards "true conservatism". Dumb as a word can't even touch that kind of abject idiocy.
Some may actually believe this. It may be stubborn kind of principle on a dead ender level not seen since Lt Onoda took to the jungle. But at least its based on belief.
Others just think we're that stupid and will try stirring this sh*t right up until the election. These types are pretty easy to spot.
-
Sanford has a good pro-life record, the bozos are those who abandon the pro-life cause, best to see the backs of them. Next!
-
Sanford has a good pro-life record, the bozos are those who abandon the pro-life cause, best to see the backs of them. Next!
Really? So.... does this mean you're going to support Sanford against Trump?
-
Of course I am not "absolutely certain". But what I'm paid to do is help my clients make decisions, based on sober analysis of the known facts and likely future conditions. I am not paid to dither while Rome burns because of my lack of "absolutely certainty".
I see a GOP being led by the nose by an erratic demagogue and afraid to state that the emperor has no clothes. We need a vehicle by which the GOP rank and file - not party elites who are covering their collective asses - can weigh in on whether the way ahead - and the avoidance of disaster - may require a change in leadership.
That's right - but you will find no dark horse. Won't happen. Sanford will be blocked.
The only chance of a Dark Horse will have to come from a 3rd party... And that is a damn little chance.
-
Defferent day, same song: "Orange Man Bad." Oh "Orange Man Bad"
sung by the Briefer Chorus
"We got the 2016 primaries wrong,
We got the 2016 election wrong.
Our leader the fake deacon is long gone,
But we don't have any new music
So every day we do the same old song."
-
And you're marching right along with them in "useful idiot" lockstep. There is dumb. Damn Dumb. And then there's conservatives who believe its worth having a crushing leftist electoral victory in order to force the GOP back towards "true conservatism". Dumb as a word can't even touch that kind of abject idiocy.
It's all incidental to me. I see no appreciable difference. So I will fight the greater war beyond this one and hope the two sides destroy each other... Whatever comes out the other end is what will be, at this point.
-
To the tune of 'Sing a Song' By The Carpenters.
-
So you and everyone else who doesn't want an uber-Socialist takeover of every branch of government better hope you are wrong in your assessment, and had best fight like hell to keep it from happening. The alternative is, literally, the end of conservatism as a political force in the United States.
Tump IS an uber-socialist. No appreciable difference.
-
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=167hMT9kR34#)
-
Here's reality. President Trump is the 2020 GOP presidential candidate. There is zero chance of any other person filling that role. Zero. No primary will change that, he isn't "stepping down and endorsing" anyone. He IS running and he IS the GOP/Conservative candidate for 2020. Done deal. Over. Period.
The Iowa Republican Caucus is nearly five months off, and the convention is over six months beyond that. You have plenty of time to convince Trump to step aside. Don't claim it was a done deal after it really is too late.
-
Defferent day, same song: "Orange Man Bad." Oh "Orange Man Bad"
sung by the Briefer Chorus
"We got the 2016 primaries wrong,
We got the 2016 election wrong.
Our leader the fake deacon is long gone,
But we don't have any new music
So every day we do the same old song."
And every day Trump fans sing his praises and tell the rest of us we are haters, closet Democrats and/or enemies of the state.
Your chit gets old too.
-
Tump IS an uber-socialist. No appreciable difference.
Umm..... but.....
uber-socialists (or socialists of 'any' stripe)....
don't roll back government regulations. They only increase government regulations.
Just SAYIN..... :whistle:
-
Tump IS an uber-socialist. No appreciable difference.
And you are Uber-wrong. Yet, again.
-
Umm..... but.....
uber-socialists (or socialists of 'any' stripe)....
don't roll back government regulations. They only increase government regulations.
Just SAYIN..... :whistle:
HE HASN'T.
Oh sure, he has piddled with it so he could make the claim - But last I looked, he 'rolled back' somewhere between 500 and 1000 regulations in a stack of regulations an acre wide and 5 stories tall.
Utterly insignificant.
-
And you are Uber-wrong. Yet, again.
No, I am not.
-
HE HASN'T.
Oh sure, he has piddled with it so he could make the claim - But last I looked, he 'rolled back' somewhere between 500 and 1000 regulations in a stack of regulations an acre wide and 5 stories tall.
Utterly insignificant.
Scuse me? 500-1000 regulations rolled back is "insignificant"? I'd say it was more a case of being "just a start".
Point is.... he's not a socialist if he rolls back regs (ie less government control). Also...the economy is booming and it sure as hell would NOT be if one of the gdamned DemocRats was in the WH.
-
Scuse me? 500-1000 regulations rolled back is "insignificant"? I'd say it was more a case of being "just a start".
Point is.... he's not a socialist if he rolls back regs (ie less government control). Also...the economy is booming and it sure as hell would NOT be if one of the gdamned DemocRats was in the WH.
Right - Just a start - Like the 1% of the waaaaalllll!!!!
And Mussolini made the trains run on time. All Y'all won't get that until it's too late.
-
Scuse me? 500-1000 regulations rolled back is "insignificant"? I'd say it was more a case of being "just a start".
Point is.... he's not a socialist if he rolls back regs (ie less government control). Also...the economy is booming and it sure as hell would NOT be if one of the gdamned DemocRats was in the WH.
"There's no difference between Trump and the rats."
"But what about his policies X Y & Z and their results?"
"So what"
Thats how these conversations go. Why bother?
-
Right - Just a start - Like the 1% of the waaaaalllll!!!!
And Mussolini made the trains run on time. All Y'all won't get that until it's too late.
I never was ""on board"" for that wall, hon.... so it really doesn't matter to me if it gets built or not. I was always (and still am) more for changing the idiotic immigration laws (like catch & release, asylum status, etc.) and enforcing the damned laws we already had on the books for a refreshing change (despite Obama's and Obama-appointed judges' leftist edicts). But I have heard and read that new wall IS being constructed.... as we speak.
-
"There's no difference between Trump and the rats."
"But what about his policies X Y & Z and their results?"
"So what"
Thats how these conversations go. Why bother?
Why bother?
Well....I do have to be in the mood for this, true. But... it's too damned hot to be outside. The plants are already withered and almost gone. The only other thing to be doing besides being here is house cleaning (vacuuming, mopping, etc.). So...
here I am!!! happy77
-
I never was ""on board"" for that wall, hon.... so it really doesn't matter to me if it gets built or not. I was always (and still am) more for changing the idiotic immigration laws (like catch & release, asylum status, etc.) and enforcing the damned laws we already had on the books for a refreshing change (despite Obama's and Obama-appointed judges' leftist edicts). But I have heard and read that new wall IS being constructed.... as we speak.
Right. a mere pittance. and for the pittance he can claim his success.
And in the mean time, the way he got that done was to initiate a new way to get around the Constitutional imperative that the House allocates the money.
For the pittance, the unconscionable sacrifice.
When they are gesturing boldly with the right hand, look at what the left hand is doing.
-
Right. a mere pittance. and for the pittance he can claim his success.
And in the mean time, the way he got that done was to initiate a new way to get around the Constitutional imperative that the House allocates the money.
For the pittance, the unconscionable sacrifice.
When they are gesturing boldly with the right hand, look at what the left hand is doing.
Yeah, well.... enemies abound. But I'll put my money on the ones in power right now and hope they stay in power....as long as possible....
to stave off the demise of this nation (impending) under the control of radical leftist Democrats.
America is thriving under Trump and his policies. I vote for more of that ""sacrifice""!
-
I vote for more of that ""sacrifice""!
Till all is gone. **nononono*
-
Till all is gone. **nononono*
It's all going to be 'gone' under the Democrats. Obama's eight years of injustice, stagnation and treasonous treachery was just the warm up. I'll support Trump over more of that hell ANY day.
-
It's all going to be 'gone' under the Democrats. Obama's eight years of injustice, stagnation and treasonous treachery was just the warm up. I'll support Trump over more of that hell ANY day.
Except that it's the same thing.
-
The Iowa Republican Caucus is nearly five months off, and the convention is over six months beyond that. You have plenty of time to convince Trump to step aside. Don't claim it was a done deal after it really is too late.
QFT. We must not let the Trumpers intimidate us that, like Thanos, Trump is inevitable. We are a grand coalition. We should be standing up in righteous outrage at party poobahs cancelling primaries to deny ordinary Republicans a voice concerning the coming trainwreck.
-
Hate to tell you scooter... But your party is already split.
That same "split" was there in 2016, and Trump won anyway because the NeverTrump faction is so small. But there is no way in hell for any Republican to win the presidency, or for the GOP to hold on to the Senate, if you lose the 40% of the party that are hardcore Trump supporters. And you can't have another nominee without alienating all those people. You guys like talking about reality, and that's reality. You may dislike those people, but they are currently are a plurality -- at least -- in the party.
As for the idea that 2016 was somehow the exception because Hillary was their worst possible candidate, I disagree. Hillary was perceived as sufficiently moderate that she attracted support from some more moderate Republicans. And from some of the money that normally supports Republicans. But if the Dem nominee is a hard leftist like Sanders or Warren, they're going to be flatly unacceptable to a lot of moderates.
Heck, Tulsi Gabbard has come out and blasted her fellow Democrats for favoring an open border -- that's not something even Hillary supported. But thanks to Julian Castor, every single one of the likely nominees is now on record as supporting the decriminalization of entering the country illegally. And that's a very unpopular position with most voters.
-
We should be standing up in righteous outrage at party poobahs cancelling primaries to deny ordinary Republicans a voice concerning the coming trainwreck.
Seems to me the vast majority of Republicans support cancelling the primaries, and supporting who they believe to be the inevitable nominee. I sense no groundswell of support for Sanders, or for anyone else for that matter. There is a small but vocal minority of Republicans demanding an alternative to someone supported by the vast majority of the party.
It's not the just the party elites who support cancelling the Presidential primaries, but most rank and file Republicans as well.
ETA: And @Jazzhead , it's probably worth noting that the others on your side in this argument all seem to be people who refuse to vote for Trump in the general election, and who don't even want to see him re-elected if he's the nominee. They see no difference between Trump and the Democrats, so they really don't care if Trump's chances of winning in a general election are sabotaged.
-
"There's no difference between Trump and the rats."
"But what about his policies X Y & Z and their results?"
"So what"
Thats how these conversations go. Why bother?
@skeeter
We bother because it's important to us, just like you bother because it's important to you.
I sense in some on this board that you are frustrated that people who don't support Trump have the audacity to even speak about it.
Let me say this...... it is worth the bother, if you care.
I care. You care.
Keep "bothering."
-
It's not the just the party elites who support cancelling the Presidential primaries, but most rank and file Republicans as well.
What evidence do you have of that? Besides, it's wrong and I suspect you know it.
-
As for the idea that 2016 was somehow the exception because Hillary was their worst possible candidate, I disagree. Hillary was perceived as sufficiently moderate that she attracted support from some more moderate Republicans. And from some of the money that normally supports Republicans. But if the Dem nominee is a hard leftist like Sanders or Warren, they're going to be flatly unacceptable to a lot of moderates.
Then you weren't paying attention. Party apparatchiks steamrolled the Sanders campaign, and Hitlery was coronated. Therein too, was a hardy plurality. But it caused a wide rift in the Democrat party. Many many Sanders fans stayed home in disgust.
That will not happen this time.
And your 40% hard core Tump base is going up against what will be a firmly united Democrat horde.
Good luck with that.
-
Except that it's the same thing.
No. It's not.
-
What evidence do you have of that? Besides, it's wrong and I suspect you know it.
Then I am wrong. I'm one you are accusing in this post.
-
No. It's not.
Yes, it most certainly IS.
You are supporting an administration whose ballooning spending will put Obama to shame.
That, in the end is the same thing.
Feed the federal beast...
-
What evidence do you have of that? Besides, it's wrong and I suspect you know it.
While most Republican voters do not want President Trump to face a primary challenger, he is weaker among his party than former President Obama was in 2012 in this regard, according to a poll taken in the days before Trump officially kicked off his 2020 re-election bid.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/449357-poll-republicans-more-interested-in-a-primary-challenge-to
In any case, there's one issue in this discussion that you seem to be consistently avoiding: -- how do you go about not alienating the 35-40% of Republican who are hardcore Trump supporters when you're calling for a contested primary that includes very harsh, public criticism by other Republican candidates? The ship has sailed on the idea that this would all happen behind the scenes, and McConnell would somehow convince Trump not to run in private. This battle is out in the open now, and it is unavoidable that those Trump supporters are going to blame the party if he somehow was not the nominee. The "pat on the head" view some on the GOP establishment have of not very bright Trump supporters is not something to which those supporters are blind. In fact, most are highly sensitive to it. I don't see it as remotely possible that they're going to just "forgive and forget" nasty attacks on Trump.
If by some miracle you win the primary battle or force Trump to quit via public pressure, you're going to lose that 40% of the party.
-
Yes, it most certainly IS.
You are supporting an administration whose ballooning spending will put Obama to shame.
That, in the end is the same thing.
Feed the federal beast...
Spending has been out of control for DECADES, but suddenly it's all Trump's fault? Puhleeze. Trump is spending taxpayer $$$ on the US Military, national defense and other Conservative priorities. Under the rats, the military is always decimated, national defense is gutted and fundamentally transformed into a not funny joke, and illegal immigration is a goal, not something to be controlled or ended. How anyone can say it's the same thing is beyond me.
-
Spending has been out of control for DECADES, but suddenly it's all Trump's fault? Puhleeze. Trump is spending taxpayer $$$ on the US Military, national defense and other Conservative priorities. Under the rats, the military is always decimated, national defense is gutted and fundamentally transformed into a not funny joke, and illegal immigration is a goal, not something to be controlled or ended. How anyone can say it's the same thing is beyond me.
I don't care what it is spent upon. Money is power, and it feeds the beast. Think as a federalist and it will come plainly into view. And Tump is going to beat Obama (by a lot), who spent more than Bush by double, who spent more than all the money ever created by the US mint in history.
That massive spending spike is not casually thrown away. There is no greater threat to our existence.
And it is the perfect environment for socialism... Which continues unabated.
It's the same damn thing alright. Left foot, right foot... To Venezuela we go.
-
I don't care what it is spent upon. Money is power, and it feeds the beast. Think as a federalist and it will come plainly into view. And Tump is going to beat Obama (by a lot), who spent more than Bush by double, who spent more than all the money ever created by the US mint in history.
That massive spending spike is not casually thrown away. There is no greater threat to our existence.
And it is the perfect environment for socialism... Which continues unabated.
It's the same damn thing alright. Left foot, right foot... To Venezuela we go.
If the situation is that bleak, then we need to vote for Rats in order to speed up the collapse, to start restoring the economy with a tyrant (that's all we'll get once order has finally fallen).
Faster, please!
-
Spending has been out of control for DECADES, but suddenly it's all Trump's fault? Puhleeze. Trump is spending taxpayer $$$ on the US Military, national defense and other Conservative priorities. Under the rats, the military is always decimated, national defense is gutted and fundamentally transformed into a not funny joke, and illegal immigration is a goal, not something to be controlled or ended. How anyone can say it's the same thing is beyond me.
How can anyone not say it... and then adding "and other Conservative priorities".. Conservative as in giving the democrats everything they wanted? Saying it was a one time thing and then doing it again. What was that campaign promise again? O yeah, In 2016, Trump promised to totally wipe out the national debt over eight years in office. How much of that budget went to building the wall (that Mexico was going to pay for)?
Roamer is dead right... it is out of control.
-
If the situation is that bleak, then we need to vote for Rats in order to speed up the collapse, to start restoring the economy with a tyrant (that's all we'll get once order has finally fallen).
Faster, please!
Funny, the best the budget has been lately was under a democrat president (lame duck) with contract with America... Seems then republicans can remember they are suppose to be conservative.
-
If the situation is that bleak, then we need to vote for Rats in order to speed up the collapse, to start restoring the economy with a tyrant (that's all we'll get once order has finally fallen).
Faster, please!
Stay home in November, everyone. The GOP'll soon offer us anything we conservatives want if we'll only come back and vote.
They won't say 'good' and proceed to sound as 'woke' as the rats just because the rat base makes the most of every situation they're offered and friggen shows up to vote.
-
If the situation is that bleak, then we need to vote for Rats in order to speed up the collapse, to start restoring the economy with a tyrant (that's all we'll get once order has finally fallen).
Faster, please!
As history attests, Bush, Obummer, Tump - Party makes no difference.
And that is the point.
Different story if all y'all want to actually oppose it and make a principled stand. Then I am all in.
But merely changing the drapes in the White House every 4/8 years sure as hell ain't getting it done.
-
Funny, the best the budget has been lately was under a democrat president (lame duck) with contract with America... Seems then republicans can remember they are suppose to be conservative.
THAT'S RIGHT.
-
As history attests, Bush, Obummer, Tump - Party makes no difference.
And that is the point.
Different story if all y'all want to actually oppose it and make a principled stand. Then I am all in.
But merely changing the drapes in the White House every 4/8 years sure as hell ain't getting it done.
The "principled stand" is not electable because of all the takers we have in society, so I guess it's probably best to crash the system by electing all Democrats, to hasten the rebuilding to follow. Viva le Crash!
Faster, please.
-
Stay home in November, everyone. The GOP'll soon offer us anything we conservatives want if we'll only come back and vote.
They won't say 'good' and proceed to sound as 'woke' as the rats just because the rat base makes the most of every situation they're offered and friggen shows up to vote.
I'm not advocating staying home. No, I have a more radical approach: Get out and vote, and vote Democrat. After all, all Republicans are as useless as teats on a boar hog, I hear.
-
Stay home in November, everyone. The GOP'll soon offer us anything we conservatives want if we'll only come back and vote.
They won't say 'good' and proceed to sound as 'woke' as the rats just because the rat base makes the most of every situation they're offered and friggen shows up to vote.
Right... Head out and vote in more moderates and liberals! And castigate Roy Moore and Mike Lee! Curse Bolton as he gets churned under the bus... Because TUMP!
That'll fix it! *****rollingeyes*****
-
Screw that. Vote for the genuine article, vote Dem. Hasten the collapse and get it over with.
-
The "principled stand" is not electable because of all the takers we have in society, so I guess it's probably best to crash the system by electing all Democrats, to hasten the rebuilding to follow. Viva le Crash!
Faster, please.
Fine. Have it your way - To me there is no difference. :shrug:
I will just keep voting for Conservatives. You know... The people that would actually fix it.
-
Right... Head out and vote in more moderates and liberals! And castigate Roy Moore and Mike Lee! Curse Bolton as he gets churned under the bus... Because TUMP!
That'll fix it! *****rollingeyes*****
*Looks over both shoulders*
-
Fine. Have it your way - To me there is no difference. :shrug:
I will just keep voting for Conservatives. You know... The people that would actually fix it.
We thought we were doing that. but I guess not, so I've given up. :shrug:
-
Fine. Have it your way - To me there is no difference. :shrug:
I will just keep voting for Conservatives. You know... The people that would actually fix it.
I wish the rats were as principled way back when and refused to move the ball forward unless it could be moved all the way into the end zone in one hail mary. We wouldn't be dealing with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders today.
-
We thought we were doing that. but I guess not, so I've given up. :shrug:
When Mike Lee is spit upon in a Conservative forum something is damn well wrong.
The Turtle and Gramnesty are heroes, and Roy Moore is a POS.
Conservatives are getting mowed over by the GOP and the Tump administration, and people cheer.
A republican president on the fast track to spend more money that in all of history (AGAIN) and it is brushed aside.
I don't know whatever you call it, But it sure as hell ain't Conservatism.
-
I wish the rats were as principled way back when and refused to move the ball forward unless it could be moved all the way into the end zone in one hail mary. We wouldn't be dealing with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders today.
Oh stop it. In all my life the Republicans have not moved the ball a single inch. They have lost ground continually on every front. That is not anything but design.
Like I said, no opposition. BOHICA
-
When Mike Lee is spit upon in a Conservative forum something is damn well wrong.
The Turtle and Gramnesty are heroes, and Roy Moore is a POS.
Conservatives are getting mowed over by the GOP and the Tump administration, and people cheer.
A republican president on the fast track to spend more money that in all of history (AGAIN) and it is brushed aside.
I don't know whatever you call it, But it sure as hell ain't Conservatism.
It doesn't matter. We can't stop the crash, only slow it down, so I say bring it. Faster please.
I give up on trying anymore.
-
When Mike Lee is spit upon in a Conservative forum something is damn well wrong.
The Turtle and Gramnesty are heroes, and Roy Moore is a POS.
Conservatives are getting mowed over by the GOP and the Tump administration, and people cheer.
A republican president on the fast track to spend more money that in all of history (AGAIN) and it is brushed aside.
I don't know whatever you call it, But it sure as hell ain't Conservatism.
:amen:
-
Screw that. Vote for the genuine article, vote Dem. Hasten the collapse and get it over with.
This discussion is silly. Politics is the art of the possible. Of course the GOP's and the Democrats' differences on policy are substantial, and perhaps greater than at any point in my lifetime. The goal can and must be to defeat the Dems - even if we are not as "conservative" as some would like, the Dems are touting socialism, open borders and race war.
-
It doesn't matter. We can't stop the crash, only slow it down, so I say bring it. Faster please.
I give up on trying anymore.
Like I said, Conservatism is the only fix. And always has been.
I will try till I die for those principle things.
And outside of them, you are right. Might as well let it come while we still have arms. :shrug:
-
Like I said, Conservatism is the only fix. And always has been.
I will try till I die for those principle things.
And outside of them, you are right. Might as well let it come while we still have arms. :shrug:
Exactly. May as well vote Dem. Just let it burn.
-
This discussion is silly. Politics is the art of the possible. Of course the GOP's and the Democrats' differences on policy are substantial, and perhaps greater than at any point in my lifetime. The goal can and must be to defeat the Dems - even if we are not as "conservative" as some would like, the Dems are touting socialism, open borders and race war.
Too late. You, above most others, have convinced me. If the best we can do is a Governor who told his whole state to shove it up it's collective ass to go on a trip out of the country for a tryst, then we're finished. Done.
I give up. Vote Democrat and hasten the collapse, it's the only way. I hope I get a raving lo=unatic to vote for, and do it up right.
-
Too late. You, above most others, have convinced me. If the best we can do is a Governor who told his whole state to shove it up it's collective ass to go on a trip out of the country for a tryst, then we're finished. Done.
I give up. Vote Democrat and hasten the collapse, it's the only way. I hope I get a raving lo=unatic to vote for, and do it up right.
Sanford has a lifetime ACU rating of 92, and has a demonstrated record as a deficit hawk. Stop with the histrionics and put on your big boy pants. Support a conservative in the primary and see how things go. in the poll that @Maj. Bill Martin cited, 44 percent of GOP voters now want to see Trump primaried. He is not inevitable. Sanford is my choice, because I choose to fight. What's yours?
-
Trump allowed the military to do their job and beat back ISIS. ISIS is like the Nazis, brave young men and women from Western countries have gone to fight and sometimes die alongside the Kurds in defeating this great evil. Trump deserves all the credit in the world for getting in on this. Mattis deserves a lot of credit, they all deserve some credit.
Bush and Obama were custodians of that Iraq conflict, withdrawal and so on, Obama especially for the rise of ISIS.
I've said this a million times, ISIS could still be around strong, Caliphate operating, maybe it would have taken longer under others if it would have occurred at all, that they'd be stopped, a real terror.
And some one is asking about what's permanent and calling Trump names. Their way would have ISIS still committing crimes and indeed, doing their terror acts more against the war.
My reason, vote paid off handsomely. Save Christians too, it's not perfect but it's pretty good. I don't need anymore reasons after that.
We need now, to stay the course and see this out.
-
Sanford has a lifetime ACU rating of 92, and has a demonstrated record as a deficit hawk. Stop with the histrionics and put on your big boy pants. Support a conservative in the primary and see how things go. in the poll that @Maj. Bill Martin cited, 44 percent of GOP voters now want to see Trump primaried. He is not inevitable. Sanford is my choice, because I choose to fight. What's yours?
I told you what's wrong with Sanford, and you are unmoved by somebody who would do what he did. Fine, just don't claim your view is a moral one, because it's everything but.
No, y'all have convinced me that Trump, the only Army we have, is rotten so I've decided to root for the collapse. I'll cut out the nonsense and do what I can to make that happen, and vote for a Democrat next November. The loonier, the better.
-
Too late. You, above most others, have convinced me. If the best we can do is a Governor who told his whole state to shove it up it's collective ass to go on a trip out of the country for a tryst, then we're finished. Done.
I give up. Vote Democrat and hasten the collapse, it's the only way. I hope I get a raving lo=unatic to vote for, and do it up right.
I'm with you on this, @Cyber Liberty. None of these "oh, the horrors of Trump" have a plan other than to resist Trump other than three half-baked has-beens trying to primary him. And, they don't really seem to support the has-beens as much as they reject Trump. You're right. Burn it down.
-
I'm with you on this, @Cyber Liberty. None of these "oh, the horrors of Trump" have a plan other than to resist Trump other than three half-baked has-beens trying to primary him. And, they don't really seem to support the has-beens as much as they reject Trump. You're right. Burn it down.
:beer: :beer: at the Castle. It's more of a Citadel, and we're going to need one. You bring the marshmallows, I'll bring the chocolate so all we need is graham crackers and wienies.
-
:beer: :beer: at the Castle. It's more of a Citadel, and we're going to need one. You bring the marshmallows, I'll bring the chocolate so all we need is graham crackers and wienies.
Maybe you could get some of the crackers and wienies around here to show up. 888mouth
-
Sanford has a lifetime ACU rating of 92, and has a demonstrated record as a deficit hawk. Stop with the histrionics and put on your big boy pants.
I don't think it really qualifies as histrionics to consider whether Sanford's very well publicized indiscretions make him electable at all. After all, part of the argument for supporting challengers to Trump is that's he's supposedly unelectable.
The only two guys that have stepped forward to challenge Trump are a pair of failed politicians who lost their last race, were in the political desert, and so have nothing to lose. Both are scandal-ridden -- Walsh has those godawful tweets, and Sanford has the Appalachian Trail. There's also Weld -- a 74 year old non-Republican who hasn't held office for more than two decades. In other words, another guy without a political career to worry about.
Point is, I don't think its a coincidence that only out of work pols with nothing to lose politically have declared against Trump. That's because the politicians who do have active and/or promising future political careers know that turning on Trump will alienate a massive amount of their own support. They'd not only very likely lose in the primaries, but they'd see a backlash from the solid plurality of hardcore Trump supporters in the GOP. But these guys...it's not about winning because they know they won't/can't. Charitably, it's about them making a public statement of opposition to Trump -- though I personally think we have plenty of that from Dems already. Otherwise, it's simply about them trying to get on the talk show or lecture circuit, and grab a bit of the spotlight that has passed them by.
Those pols smart enough not to do the stupid kind of career-ending crap that Walsh and Sanford did know that the smart play is simply to wait Trump out, and pursue the 2024 nomination instead. A 2020 primary challenge to Trump is simply tilting at windmills.
-
Maybe you could get some of the crackers and wienies around here to show up. 888mouth
I'll accept as many as I can. Bring more weapons and lots of ammo....
-
I'll accept as many as I can. Bring more weapons and lots of ammo....
@XenaLee, I'll swing by and pick you up on the way.
-
I'll accept as many as I can. Bring more weapons and lots of ammo....
Can I bring my friend from Houston who's an expert shot and has a mini-arsenal...lol?
-
@XenaLee, I'll swing by and pick you up on the way.
Okey dokey.
-
Can I bring my friend from Houston who's an expert shot and has a mini-arsenal...lol?
The sort of hardware we'll need. :beer:
-
Stop with the histrionics and put on your big boy pants.
You should consider taking your own advice.
-
You should consider taking your own advice.
Polemics never do.
-
The sort of hardware we'll need. :beer:
So... you're ok with bump stocks on AR-15s with night vision scope then......lol. Yeah....
the kind we'll need.
-
So... you're ok with bump stocks on AR-15s with night vision scope then......lol. Yeah....
the kind we'll need.
Perfect! We don't need a lot of range, like with 30-06, but small arms would be prefect. It's all downhill, which is why it's a nice Citadel.
-
Perfect! We don't need a lot of range, like with 30-06, but small arms would be prefect. It's all downhill, which is why it's a nice Citadel.
Defendable.
-
Defendable.
Downside: Hauling the trash down to the street is a real PITA.
-
By the way, there is a major difference between what the Dems did with LBJ, and the feasibility of repeating that with Trump.
By 1968, LBJ had lost any semblance of a dedicated constituency in either party. He'd alienated the left with Vietnam, and alienated much of the South with the Civil Rights Act. There was really no downside to forcing him out because he didn't have a loyal constituency within the Democrat Party that would carry a grudge against the Democrats into November.
In contrast, Trump retains a large block of very hardcore support. It may be only a plurality rather than a majority within the GOP, but it absolutely is there. It certainly is large enough to kneecap the entire GOP if it is alienated by party efforts to get rid of Trump himself.
-
By the way, there is a major difference between what the Dems did with LBJ, and the feasibility of repeating that with Trump.
By 1968, LBJ had lost any semblance of a dedicated constituency in either party. He'd alienated the left with Vietnam, and alienated much of the South with the Civil Rights Act. There was really no downside to forcing him out because he didn't have a loyal constituency that would carry a grudge against the Democrat Party into November.
In contrast, Trump retains a large block of very hardcore support. It may be only a plurality rather than a majority within the GOP, but it absolutely is there. It certainly is large enough to kneecap the entire GOP if it is alienated by party efforts to get rid of Trump himself.
I'm told Trump has lost all the support of people who never voted for him...not sure what that even means.
-
Downside: Hauling the trash down to the street is a real PITA.
Highly trained sled dogs? lolololol
-
I'm told Trump has lost all the support of people who never voted for him...not sure what that even means.
:beer:
Maybe we are doomed next November -- maybe Trump can't win, and we'll piss off every Trump supporter if we try to boot him out in favor of someone else. Perhaps that's reality. But if so, we may as well ride with Trump because that at least won't split the party to the same degree. The NeverTrumpers will get their wish anyway if he loses, and his supporters will at least think that the party backed him, and so show up at the polls in November to vote for Congress. And 2024 will be a new day.
But if the party turns on Trump in 2020, a whole lot of Trump supporters are going to abandon the party for good, and they won't show up in 2020 to back the congressional candidates of a party they'll view as having betrayed them. And most of them won't come back in 2024 regardless of who the nominee is. Sometimes, playing out the hand is the best you can do.
-
Let's lay this out a bit.
If Trump loses this election in 2020, it will be due to two elements within the GOP.
Element One is just too weak kneed to actually back a President who FIGHTS back when the Left/Media smears him.
Element Two is too morally narcissistic and ill educated to understand that compromises (like increasing spending on Defense) must be made in a Republic and that President's can't simply waive their imperial hand and get everything they want. In other words, they lack understanding of the constitution, its intention to require political compromise, and the role of an Executive in that process.
As Element One, we have the Tea-totaling Manhattanites who consider him to vulgar and boorish...the types who can't look their liberal pals in the eye when Trump puts out an "Oh so plebeian" tweet.
Element Two consists of the "there's no difference between the Dems and Trump" crowd who see no difference between a Kavanaugh and Sotomayor on the Supreme court.
There is hope for Element One, as they may yet vote for Trump privately while publicly disavowing him...that goes over better at Tea Parties in the Village after all.
Element Two, on the other hand, is the "let it burn" crowd. They cling to their "GOP and the Left are all the same" meme as a religious tenet...and while they can't defend that position with any facts or reason, they don't need to in their own minds because its an article of faith (thus rendering reason and facts irrelevant). Evidence and political reality simply don't register with these "jihadis of the moralist right"..and anyone who disagrees with them is an apostate (otherwise known to them as a Trump Supporter).
Much as the GOP and conservative movement need these people to help in the fight against the rising tide of the Left...they will likely never join in because they lack the moral courage to do so. I say "moral courage" because that's what is needed for someone to elevate reason above belief...acknowledge their logical error...and join in political battle against the socialists. Having clung to "belief" these past two years in the face of a tidal wave of countering facts, its become clear that there is little the rest of us can do persuade these folks.
Making a long story short. If we lose in 2020, it will simply and directly be because of these two groups...small as they are within the broader conservative movement. They make up 10-12% of the Right...which explains Gallups consistent 88-90% measurement of President Trump's party approval...which is quite possibly enough to hand the elections to the Left (which is precisely what some of these people want to happen).
-
:beer:
...
Sometimes, playing out the hand is the best you can do.
That's about the size of it, and I'm tired of the criticism of Every. Damned. Thing. He. Does. Or. Says.
I'm not saying he's perfect, or anywhere close, but he's the Army we have.
The argument always boils down to "He's not perfect, so I refuse to support him." I'm just running that out to its logical conclusion when I say, "Screw it then, point the car at the cliff and floor it." That is where I am today.
-
Let's put aside how folks will vote if it turns out the choice is between Trump and a socialist. A vote with nose clenched is still a vote.
But that is not where we are now. It is not inevitable that Trump be the nominee, in the face of clear and sustained evidence that he will likely lose the election. We can still make a choice regarding who will represent our party. We do not need to accept the premise of the Kobayashi Maru. We are Republicans, and we should vote - in the primary - as our consciences dictate. We should not be denied that opportunity by fanatic Trumpsters or sycophant party elites.
Sanford is a proven conservative. I can easily support him on the merits. I am prepared to send a message, along with the apparent 40 percent or so of Republicans who want the Reality Show primaried.
My goal is not to bury Trump, but to sustain his legacy. I believe he cannot win, no matter how fervent the support of his base. I see no hope with him as the nominee, acknowledging as I say so that the media has given him the rawest of deals.
This isn't about blind loyalty or blood sport. This is about retaining the White House and Senate . We have the issues, we have the policies. But Trump is the fatal distraction that will punch the Dems' ticket.
It is time to change the rules on the no-win scenario.
-
That's about the size of it, and I'm tired of the criticism of Every. Damned. Thing. He. Does. Or. Says.
I'm not saying he's perfect, or anywhere close, but he's the Army we have.
The argument always boils down to "He's not perfect, so I refuse to support him." I'm just running that out to its logical conclusion when I say, "Screw it then, point the car at the cliff and floor it." That is where I am today.
Trump isn't the army until he is nominated. You and his other supporters can still convince him to quit. Lots of high profile candidates would jump in at that point. I suppose you're going to tell me no other Republican could defeat Fauxcahontas.
The real party split comes from differing visions. Trump supporters by and large do not place a priority on fiscal restraint or ethical behavior. They just don't.
-
That's about the size of it, and I'm tired of the criticism of Every. Damned. Thing. He. Does. Or. Says.
I'm not saying he's perfect, or anywhere close, but he's the Army we have.
The argument always boils down to "He's not perfect, so I refuse to support him." I'm just running that out to its logical conclusion when I say, "Screw it then, point the car at the cliff and floor it." That is where I am today.
What’s really aggravating is the more good news results from this administration’s policies the louder they scream that Trump’s unelectable. There’s even a member here who says he loves what Trump has done so much he wants him run out of town in order to preserve it.
It don’t make no kind of sense.
-
Trump isn't the army until he is nominated. You and his other supporters can still convince him to quit. Lots of high profile candidates would jump in at that point. I suppose you're going to tell me no other Republican could defeat Fauxcahontas.
The real party split comes from differing visions. Trump supporters by and large do not place a priority on fiscal restraint or ethical behavior. They just don't.
So many words, all crammed into my mouth where they don't belong.
-
What’s really aggravating is the more good news results from this administration’s policies the louder they scream that Trump’s unelectable. There’s even a member here who says he loves what Trump has done so much he wants him run out of town in order to preserve it.
It don’t make no kind of sense.
No, it does not. It's the same thing as talking to a hard-line Antifa, really. There is no functional difference.
-
There’s even a member here who says he loves what Trump has done so much he wants him run out of town in order to preserve it.
It don’t make no kind of sense.
It happens all the time in the business world. At some times a change agent is needed. At other times, changes made need to be preserved. Companies change CEOs as circumstances change.
What makes no sense is shutting down debate and cancelling primaries in fealty to a flawed incumbent who will in all likelihood lose, a loss which, as @Mesaclone acknowledges, could be the endgame for conservatives.
-
Let's put aside how folks will vote if it turns out the choice is between Trump and a socialist. A vote with nose clenched is still a vote.
But that is not where we are now. It is not inevitable that Trump be the nominee, in the face of clear and sustained evidence that he will likely lose the election. We can still make a choice regarding who will represent our party. We do not need to accept the premise of the Kobayashi Maru.
I'm truly confused by this.
In a Kobayashi Maru scenario, defeat is certain/preordained. But that's not actually what you're arguing -- you're just saying that it is "likely". So given that your stated goal is to avoid defeat, your position must be that your alternative is less likely to lose. Or at a minimum, equally likely. But you haven't even attempted to make that argument. Every single time someone has stated why they believe Sanford is even less electable than Trump, you've dodged it. So are you claiming that Sanford is more electable than Trump, or not?
We are Republicans, and we should vote - in the primary - as our consciences dictate.
Well of course we should vote as our conscience dictates. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything to the contrary. But that kind of begs the question of what factors we should consider when voting our conscience. For me personally, electability is a core component of voting my conscience because I care about the end result.
My goal is not to bury Trump, but to sustain his legacy. I believe he cannot win, no matter how fervent the support of his base. I see no hope with him as the nominee, acknowledging as I say so that the media has given him the rawest of deals.
Well, now I'm confused again. You said above that his loss is "likely", and now you're back to claiming he "cannot" win.
It is time to change the rules on the no-win scenario.
If you're changing the rules of a supposed "no-win" scenario, then you have to be able to explain why supporting Sanders makes winning more likely. And again...I just don't think you've even attempted to do that.
-
Trump isn't the army until he is nominated. You and his other supporters can still convince him to quit.
If we're just going to assume that we all have the ability to convince others to do whatever we want, why don't you guys just convince all the other voters to vote for Trump, and that way he'll win? Or better yet, just convince everyone else to write in someone like Ted Cruz or Sanford!
The idea that posters on a message board have the ability to convince Trump to quit is laughable. The only scenario I could imagine in which he might quit is if Ivanka, Don Jr. and Melania all told him that he could not win, and that he should quit. And none of them are taking my calls.
More to the point...If you can't convince all of us that Trump's loss is certain, what are the chances that an egotistical guy such as Trump himself is going to believe it??
-
Trump's detractors on this site, have been wrong, from the early days of 2016.
Wrong about the primaries, wrong about the general election which he won.
Why should their opinions have any weight here?
The original Fake Deacon was wrong with his 100+ posts per day.
-
The idea that posters on a message board have the ability to convince Trump to quit is laughable. The only scenario I could imagine in which he might quit is if Ivanka, Don Jr. and Melania all told him that he could not win, and that he should quit. And none of them are taking my calls.
More to the point...If you can't convince all of us that Trump's loss is certain, what are the chances that an egotistical guy such as Trump himself is going to believe it??
We have just as much chance of determining the electoral vote tally, and yet here we are. You know what I don't understand ... why did people support Trump in the primaries under the fear that otherwise, he would make the nomination worthless? Why did so many conservatives allow this old fatass to bully them around, and why are they doing it again?
-
Trump isn't the army until he is nominated. You and his other supporters can still convince him to quit. Lots of high profile candidates would jump in at that point. I suppose you're going to tell me no other Republican could defeat Fauxcahontas.
The real party split comes from differing visions. Trump supporters by and large do not place a priority on fiscal restraint or ethical behavior. They just don't.
There's no way Trump's giving up the seat alive, and I don't anticipate him not being alive come 2020.
It'd probably take supernatural intervention, which I also don't anticipate (though I suppose anything is possible) for that to change.
-
There's no way Trump's giving up the seat
Why would he when 90% of Republicans don't want him to? Why do you overlook this little factoid?
-
Why would he when 90% of Republicans don't want him to? Why do you overlook this little factoid?
Because I think they're wrong, that's why, and I'm not afraid to say it.
-
You know what I don't understand ... why did people support Trump in the primaries under the fear that otherwise, he would make the nomination worthless? Why did so many conservatives allow this old fatass to bully them around, and why are they doing it again?
I didn't vote for him in the primary. He was infinitely preferable to Hillary in the general election, so I voted for him then. And I think any effort to replace him now will alienate his supporters, and toss both the Presidency and Congress to the Democrats.
-
Let's lay this out a bit.
If Trump loses this election in 2020, it will be due to two elements within the GOP.
Element One is just too weak kneed to actually back a President who FIGHTS back when the Left/Media smears him.
Element Two is too morally narcissistic and ill educated to understand that compromises (like increasing spending on Defense) must be made in a Republic and that President's can't simply waive their imperial hand and get everything they want. In other words, they lack understanding of the constitution, its intention to require political compromise, and the role of an Executive in that process.
As Element One, we have the Tea-totaling Manhattanites who consider him to vulgar and boorish...the types who can't look their liberal pals in the eye when Trump puts out an "Oh so plebeian" tweet.
Element Two consists of the "there's no difference between the Dems and Trump" crowd who see no difference between a Kavanaugh and Sotomayor on the Supreme court.
There is hope for Element One, as they may yet vote for Trump privately while publicly disavowing him...that goes over better at Tea Parties in the Village after all.
Element Two, on the other hand, is the "let it burn" crowd. They cling to their "GOP and the Left are all the same" meme as a religious tenet...and while they can't defend that position with any facts or reason, they don't need to in their own minds because its an article of faith (thus rendering reason and facts irrelevant). Evidence and political reality simply don't register with these "jihadis of the moralist right"..and anyone who disagrees with them is an apostate (otherwise known to them as a Trump Supporter).
C'mon, what about Element Three: those that can see with their own eyes the liability that Trump's reckless, erratic governing style will have on a ticket that HAS to win in 2020? And who are not so weak-kneed as those who grasp both ankles when the hard-core Trumpsters insist that primaries be cancelled.
-
That's about the size of it, and I'm tired of the criticism of Every. Damned. Thing. He. Does. Or. Says.
I'm not saying he's perfect, or anywhere close, but he's the Army we have.
The argument always boils down to "He's not perfect, so I refuse to support him." I'm just running that out to its logical conclusion when I say, "Screw it then, point the car at the cliff and floor it." That is where I am today.
That's one of the arguments. But there's just as much, "He's perfect, so YOU must support him (in all ways, and in everything he does)".
I don't buy into either side, but I've only seen one side telling other people what they have to do.
-
All the negative chatter by Jazz and Cato here is not supported by fact.
Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump. His opposition for 2020 in the primary is composed of solid LOSERS. There is not one that will rise up above single digits. Sanford is a huge joke. This fool is a one percenter! You think that conservatives are going to vote for this POS? No way! He will be in and out QUICKLY!
I supported Trump from week two of his campaign in 2016, where he largely announced the issues he wanted to address. His platform was compelling, and he earned the following he has, unlike all his challengers. That is why he bested 16 others, easily bested them.
I believe it was a Rasmusen poll in the last week that indicated that support for Trump is up 20% with blacks and Hispanics. The news guy indicated if this is accurate, Trump will walk away with the election in November.
I believe he will win by a larger margin than he did in 2016. The only Dem that can give him a real run is HRC. If she does not run, every other candidate in the Democommie Party will be road kill. Flattened!
Trump takes 38-40 Electoral College states in 2020. No Contest!
-
Because I think they're wrong, that's why, and I'm not afraid to say it.
:facepalm2:
-
I'm truly confused by this.
In a Kobayashi Maru scenario, defeat is certain/preordained. But that's not actually what you're arguing -- you're just saying that it is "likely". So given that your stated goal is to avoid defeat, your position must be that your alternative is less likely to lose. Or at a minimum, equally likely. But you haven't even attempted to make that argument. Every single time someone has stated why they believe Sanford is even less electable than Trump, you've dodged it. So are you claiming that Sanford is more electable than Trump, or not?
My apologies for the imprecision. Here's what I believe - that Trump as the nominee is almost certain to lose. Among the reasons:
1. Trump's poll numbers are absolutely terrible, especially given the favorable economy. Yes, you cannot trust a single poll, but a series of them is ignored at your peril. And he is being beaten in places like Texas, which if lost will almost alone lead to Trump's defeat.
2. The midwestern battleground states that provided his margin of victory are trending against him. Those are states where suburban women hold the key, I can think of few groups that are more viscerally anti-Trump.
3. His rural base is being buffeted by his tariff policies. He'll retain most of those blue states, to be sure, but how will the loss of even two or three be made up elsewhere?
4. Putting aside the nitty gritty of constructing a plausible electoral college strategy, Trump is unable or unwilling to grow his base and the opposition is salivating at the prospect of a referendum on Trump.
5. He is a gaffe machine who cannot retain good counsel. A parade of national security advisors and other top officials cast doubt in voters minds about his basic competence as a leader. He scares people.
6. The Dems sense opportunity and blood in the water. Folks of all stripes are clearly tired of the Reality Show. Even those who support Trump hasten to concur that he's an erratic autocrat.
Why is Sanford more electable than Trump?
a. I think he has the good sense to make his message not so much as a repudiation of Trump but as an advocate of traditional Republican verities such as fiscal responsibility and free trade. Meanwhile, he will agree with the President, and his supporters, with respect to (among other things) judicial nominations and the rejection of identity politics.
b. Trump supporters aren't stupid - I fail to see them staying home in a fit of pique, not when this election will decide the direction of the federal courts for a generation. Sanford is a serious conservative with an attractive message to those willing to listen.
c. The Dems seek to exploit Trump angst by installing a full-throated socialist in the White House. What better way to counter that message than with a champion of fiscal rectitude? Fiscal profligacy countered by a call for a return to responsibility. Sanford can, I think, articulate conservative perspectives far better than the Game Show Host-in Chief, and frame the choice well regarding the future direction of the leviathan state.
d. If Trump's not the nominee, the Dems can no longer hide behind their bogeyman. They must present their message of open borders, race hatred and socialism out in the open where, like roaches, they can be exposed and extinguished.
-
My apologies for the imprecision. Here's what I believe - that Trump as the nominee is almost certain to lose. Among the reasons:
1. Trump's poll numbers are absolutely terrible, especially given the favorable economy. Yes, you cannot trust a single poll, but a series of them is ignored at your peril. And he is being beaten in places like Texas, which if lost will almost alone lead to Trump's defeat.
(https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:320x,crop:x800,quality:90x75/images/06d61ddb4c0b0332ba589c81207e1c6f2f1f601ce348b68871ec908db29649ad_1.jpg)
-
@Jazzhead
You said: "My apologies for the imprecision. Here's what I believe - that Trump as the nominee is almost certain to lose. Among the reasons..."
I agree with you. I just read about Mark Sanford from his birth to now. He won every election by a large margin, with one or two exceptions, when he ran for an office and this includes after he went to another country to see a woman. He kept winning by large margins - that was extraordinary. One of his primary reasons for running for office was,and is, to stop overspending. He is right when he says Trump has spent more money than Obama right now and other presidents also overspent putting us in the financial trouble we are in. (The last two times we spent within our budget was when Kasich was in the House of Representatives heading the Budget Committee.)
Sanford's history in this regard will resonate with voters. The woman thing he had did not matter as he kept winning offices after that by large margins based on his fiduciary goals of staying within a budget and reducing debt. Which is more important - his affair or getting this government to stay within a budget and reduce debt?
Trump has already tried bringing up Sanford's affair; he calls him, “Mr. Appalachian Trail.†Trump is leaving himself open for Sanford to speak about the numerous affairs Trump had while married to his present wife and wives before her. What is a name(s) for Trump having these affairs? "Grab women Trump", "Sleep around Trump", "I like sex with any pretty woman Trump" - the names are endless.
Mark Sanford is running for President - he could win as he has won numerous times before. What will do him in are the states that have shut down their Republican primary,leaving Trump with no primary opponent.
-
I just read about Mark Sanford from his birth to now. He won every election by a large margin, with one or two exceptions, when he ran for an office and this includes after he went to another country to see a woman. He kept winning by large margins - that was extraordinary. One of his primary reasons for running for office was,and is, to stop overspending. He is right when he says Trump has spent more money than Obama right now and other presidents also overspent putting us in the financial trouble we are in. (The last two times we spent within our budget was when Kasich was in the House of Representatives heading the Budget Committee.)
Sanford's history in this regard will resonate with voters. The woman thing he had did not matter as he kept winning offices after that by large margins based on his fiduciary goals of staying within a budget and reducing debt. Which is more important - his affair or getting this government to stay within a budget and reduce debt?
Trump has already tried bringing up Sanford's affair; he calls him, “Mr. Appalachian Trail.†Trump is leaving himself open for Sanford to speak about the numerous affairs Trump had while married to his present wife and wives before her. What is a name(s) for Trump having these affairs? "Grab women Trump", "Sleep around Trump", "I like sex with any pretty woman Trump" - the names are endless.
Mark Sanford is running for President - he could win as he has won numerous times before. What will do him in are the states that have shut down their Republican primary,leaving Trump with no primary opponent.
No hypocrisy and delusion here. Nope, none whatsoever. 88devil
-
No hypocrisy and delusion here. Nope, none whatsoever. 88devil
You need to up your game, RIV. That's just feeble.
-
@Jazzhead
You said: "My apologies for the imprecision. Here's what I believe - that Trump as the nominee is almost certain to lose. Among the reasons..."
I agree with you. I just read about Mark Sanford from his birth to now. He won every election by a large margin, with one or two exceptions, when he ran for an office and this includes after he went to another country to see a woman. He kept winning by large margins - that was extraordinary. One of his primary reasons for running for office was,and is, to stop overspending. He is right when he says Trump has spent more money than Obama right now and other presidents also overspent putting us in the financial trouble we are in. (The last two times we spent within our budget was when Kasich was in the House of Representatives heading the Budget Committee.)
Sanford's history in this regard will resonate with voters. The woman thing he had did not matter as he kept winning offices after that by large margins based on his fiduciary goals of staying within a budget and reducing debt. Which is more important - his affair or getting this government to stay within a budget and reduce debt?
Trump has already tried bringing up Sanford's affair; he calls him, “Mr. Appalachian Trail.†Trump is leaving himself open for Sanford to speak about the numerous affairs Trump had while married to his present wife and wives before her. What is a name(s) for Trump having these affairs? "Grab women Trump", "Sleep around Trump", "I like sex with any pretty woman Trump" - the names are endless.
Mark Sanford is running for President - he could win as he has won numerous times before. What will do him in are the states that have shut down their Republican primary,leaving Trump with no primary opponent.
Thanks, @Victoria33 Sanford is a serious and principled conservative with the ability to articulate an alternative to the Dems' socialism. That will be a useful skill in 2020.
The left wing of the Democratic party views Trump as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to install their radicalism while the American people are distracted. Not by the failure of Trump's policies but by the wearisome sideshow he's created. It is foolish to deny the corrosiveness of that sideshow and the reality of an unleashing of forces that will have unintended consequences.
Sometimes the right person to start the job isn't the right person to finish it. Trump provided what Nixon used to call the silent majority a vehicle to express their frustration. But in 2020, someone else needs to be recruited to refine and finish what's begun. Because a loss for us now will have consequences that will threaten the Republic.
-
What will do him in are the states that have shut down their Republican primary,leaving Trump with no primary opponent.
This is truly outrageous. If Trump has an 87% GOP approval rating, why the need to deny a voice to those of us whose loyalty and support built the party? What is he and his base so afraid of? A serious discussion about deficits and trade wars?
The Trumpsters claim that the GOP is theirs now. Maybe it is, maybe not. But to attain that goal by force and not the choice of the GOP primary voter is something Republicans of all stripes should decry. Otherwise we are mice, not men.
-
This is truly outrageous. If Trump has an 87% GOP approval rating, why the need to deny a voice to those of us whose loyalty and support built the party? What is he and his base so afraid of? A serious discussion about deficits and trade wars?
The Trumpsters claim that the GOP is theirs now. Maybe it is, maybe not. But to attain that goal by force and not the choice of the GOP primary voter is something Republicans of all stripes should decry. Otherwise we are mice, not men.
Yeah, and I posited that canceling primaries was probably not a good idea and predicted that his opposition would USE this against Trump... just as you are doing. Like clockwork.
Trump has nothing to do with the decision those states' GOPers made, btw. He has no 'say so', IOW. What ""they"" (the GOPers in those states) are afraid of is probably the ssdd and usual leftist Democrat lack of ethics where the rats "cross over" and vote in Republican primaries.... in this case, for Trump's opponents. Duh.
-
Yeah, and I posited that canceling primaries was probably not a good idea and predicted that his opposition would USE this against Trump... just as you are doing. Like clockwork.
Trump has nothing to do with the decision those states' GOPers made, btw. He has no 'say so', IOW. What ""they"" (the GOPers in those states) are afraid of is probably the ssdd and usual leftist Democrat lack of ethics where the rats "cross over" and vote in Republican primaries.... in this case, for Trump's opponents. Duh.
Are you sure Trump or someone in his camp is not involved?
-
Yeah, and I posited that canceling primaries was probably not a good idea and predicted that his opposition would USE this against Trump... just as you are doing. Like clockwork.
Trump has nothing to do with the decision those states' GOPers made, btw. He has no 'say so', IOW. What ""they"" (the GOPers in those states) are afraid of is probably the ssdd and usual leftist Democrat lack of ethics where the rats "cross over" and vote in Republican primaries.... in this case, for Trump's opponents. Duh.
Who pays to run Presidential Primaries? How many offices are decided in a Presidential Primary?
-
You need to up your game, RIV. That's just feeble.
:laugh: Of course it is, Jazzy. :laugh: