Trump lashes out at DeSantis, says he regrets his endorsement of him

[corbe]

   Welcome to TBR @Dark Click

[Kamaji]

Turnout is always going to be a problem with Donald.  To change the state voter laws, the party has to outperform the democrats at early in-person voting, mail in voting, and ballot harvesting (where legal) ... for at least one cycle, in every purple and blue state.  There is no question these tactics provide a decisive boost.  Historically this has not been a problem for republicans.  Since 2016, the populist wing has surrendered many elections while they distract themselves with dark fantasies  from internet cranks (for example, the election workers are 100% democrat, and will automatically discard your ballot unless you vote on election day).  I do not believe Trump will ever adapt to modern elections.  He will cast doubt on early voting, and his supporters will be outnumbered.

[catfish1957]

Turnout is always going to be a problem with Donald.  To change the state voter laws, the party has to outperform the democrats at early in-person voting, mail in voting, and ballot harvesting (where legal) ... for at least one cycle, in every purple and blue state.  There is no question these tactics provide a decisive boost.  Historically this has not been a problem for republicans.  Since 2016, the populist wing has surrendered many elections while they distract themselves with dark fantasies  from internet cranks (for example, the election workers are 100% democrat, and will automatically discard your ballot unless you vote on election day).  I do not believe Trump will ever adapt to modern elections.  He will cast doubt on early voting, and his supporters will be outnumbered.

Kind of repeating myself, but as much as I hate Romney, he was exactly right about the "47%" hot mic-'ed comment.

When 47% of the electorate are entitlement slugs sucking off the left hind teat of the Fedzilla Sow, kind of hard to elect someone who might take that away. 

We are blankity doomed.

[LMAO]

Kind of repeating myself, but as much as I hate Romney, he was exactly right about the "47%" hot mic-'ed comment.

When 47% of the electorate are entitlement slugs sucking off the left hind teat of the Fedzilla Sow, kind of hard to elect someone who might take that away. 

We are blankity doomed.

Which is why not only is Trump not willing to cut spending but wants more. He’s bargaining that no to spending cuts will endear him to the GOP base and voters in general

All spending cuts have a constituency, so regardless what you cut, you’ll upset someone.

I suppose Trumpers could argue that if Biden and the Democrats can spend wildly, Trump should be allowed to, also. The problem with that is with interest rates going up, borrowing is going to become more costly

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Which is why not only is Trump not willing to cut spending but wants more. He’s bargaining that no to spending cuts will endear him to the GOP base and voters in general

All spending cuts have a constituency, so regardless what you cut, you’ll upset someone.

I suppose Trumpers could argue that if Biden and the Democrats can spend wildly, Trump should be allowed to, also. The problem with that is with interest rates going up, borrowing is going to become more costly

That's one of the other characteristics of a populist - someone whose policies are based solely on what their supporters want, without any other consistent animating principles or philosophy.

[Kamaji]

Kind of repeating myself, but as much as I hate Romney, he was exactly right about the "47%" hot mic-'ed comment.

When 47% of the electorate are entitlement slugs sucking off the left hind teat of the Fedzilla Sow, kind of hard to elect someone who might take that away. 

We are blankity doomed.

Maybe so, but assuming arguendo that is the case, what is to be done?  Do we simply join the democrats at the trough and gorge like they do, differing only in the objects of our largesse?  Or do we try to come up with principled leaders who can articulate a case that is persuasive enough to convince some of that 47% that the largesse they're receiving is not doing them or the country at large any favors and therefore they should support reducing the social spending, provided that nobody is subjected to a cliff-effect in which they get necessary support arbitrarily cut off before they've had a reasonable period of time to make alternative arrangements for themselves and their own support?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Maybe so, but assuming arguendo that is the case, what is to be done?  Do we simply join the democrats at the trough and gorge like they do, differing only in the objects of our largesse?  Or do we try to come up with principled leaders who can articulate a case that is persuasive enough to convince some of that 47% that the largesse they're receiving is not doing them or the country at large any favors and therefore they should support reducing the social spending, provided that nobody is subjected to a cliff-effect in which they get necessary support arbitrarily cut off before they've had a reasonable period of time to make alternative arrangements for themselves and their own support?

We just have to cut what we can, politically. it's not a binary situation. There should be plenty we can cut without upsetting people.

[catfish1957]

Maybe so, but assuming arguendo that is the case, what is to be done?  Do we simply join the democrats at the trough and gorge like they do, differing only in the objects of our largesse?  Or do we try to come up with principled leaders who can articulate a case that is persuasive enough to convince some of that 47% that the largesse they're receiving is not doing them or the country at large any favors and therefore they should support reducing the social spending, provided that nobody is subjected to a cliff-effect in which they get necessary support arbitrarily cut off before they've had a reasonable period of time to make alternative arrangements for themselves and their own support?

Yep, thus the problem.  But quoting the Great Margaret Thatcher.....

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

When that day happens.......

[massadvj]

To me, the most interesting thing DeSantis said was his criticism of Trump's Covid policy.  I think that is the softest part of Trump's underbelly. Trump continues to tout the vax, and he must already rue the day he gave that presidential medal to Fauci.  Add to that the $1 trillion he added to the debt in an attempt to save his re-election. These policies have not aged well, unlike most of Trump's other initiatives.

I support neither RDS or DJT. I can see myself voting for RDS if it came down to the two of them. Unlike many here, I will support the GOP nominee regardless.

[massadvj]

Yep, thus the problem.  But quoting the Great Margaret Thatcher.....

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

When that day happens.......

I think that day may well be at hand.

[Kamaji]

We just have to cut what we can, politically. it's not a binary situation. There should be plenty we can cut without upsetting people.

If we don't provide a principled argument for why people should accept cuts, and if we don't make proposals that respect the settled expectations of people who are not in a position to change things for their own support - like the elderly - then we will simply upset people and hand ammunition to the left.

Social security is a clear example.  A simple no-nonsense step that would not jeopardize the support of those who have come to rely on it and are not in a position to make up for the sudden loss of it is to start means-testing benefits beginning only with future retirees.  It could be more aggressively done by starting means-testing now with people who clearly have more than enough for their own necessary support, like the retired CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, for example, and then phase that means-testing in as people become accustomed to its presence.

That will not immediately shore up social security, but it will start to push its finances in a more long-term sustainable direction.  And once it becomes clear that adopting means-testing did not result in the social disaster the left will try to scare everyone with, it becomes easier to convince people to agree to take other steps to bring social security into long term sustainability.

[Kamaji]

To me, the most interesting thing DeSantis said was his criticism of Trump's Covid policy.  I think that is the softest part of Trump's underbelly. Trump continues to tout the vax, and he must already rue the day he gave that presidential medal to Fauci.  Add to that the $1 trillion he added to the debt in an attempt to save his re-election. These policies have not aged well, unlike most of Trump's other initiatives.

I support neither RDS or DJT. I can see myself voting for RDS if it came down to the two of them. Unlike many here, I will support the GOP nominee regardless.

I, too, will support whomever the ultimate nominee is (unless it's somebody who is clearly outside the Pale, like, say, Biden).

[LMAO]

That's one of the other characteristics of a populist - someone whose policies are based solely on what their supporters want, without any other consistent animating principles or philosophy.

I think what’s partially animating some Trumpers overreaction to Ron DeSantis is Donald Trump is promising to keep sending the checks, regardless of where the money comes from.

What they don’t realize is that Donald Trump’s resistance to any kind of spending cuts, especially on the major drivers of our debt and deficit, put us on the path of were those checks won’t come at all

[sneakypete]

Kind of repeating myself, but as much as I hate Romney, he was exactly right about the "47%" hot mic-'ed comment.

When 47% of the electorate are entitlement slugs sucking off the left hind teat of the Fedzilla Sow, kind of hard to elect someone who might take that away. 

We are blankity doomed.

@catfish1957

Sadly, I suspect that percentage is already over 100%,and climbing,thanks to all the illegal aliens the left is moving into America and registering to vote.

[sneakypete]

Which is why not only is Trump not willing to cut spending but wants more. He’s bargaining that no to spending cuts will endear him to the GOP base and voters in general

All spending cuts have a constituency, so regardless what you cut, you’ll upset someone.

I suppose Trumpers could argue that if Biden and the Democrats can spend wildly, Trump should be allowed to, also. The problem with that is with interest rates going up, borrowing is going to become more costly

@LMAO

Trump,like every OTHER new President is going to be obligated to spend the money in the spending bills already passed,and then fight the special interests to keep them from spending more.

He MAY well have to promote new spending bills to clean up what he is left. For example,it is going to cost a LOT of money in the short term to track down and deport the illegal aliens,but it HAS to be done or America,as a free and independent nation is over.

[sneakypete]

Which is why not only is Trump not willing to cut spending but wants more. He’s bargaining that no to spending cuts will endear him to the GOP base and voters in general

@LMAO


"The GOP base and voters that  tend to vote GOP WANT more spending."

Are you insane,or merely blinded by hatred and jealousy of the "Rude Orange Rich Man?

 

[sneakypete]

That's one of the other characteristics of a populist - someone whose policies are based solely on what their supporters want, without any other consistent animating principles or philosophy.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Are you willing to claim that GOP voters want MORE money spent on anything  other than deporting illegals?

[LMAO]

@LMAO

Trump,like every OTHER new President is going to be obligated to spend the money in the spending bills already passed,and then fight the special interests to keep them from spending more.

He MAY well have to promote new spending bills to clean up what he is left. For example,it is going to cost a LOT of money in the short term to track down and deport the illegal aliens,but it HAS to be done or America,as a free and independent nation is over.

You said this many times and you’ve been wrong every time you said it. Mandatory spending is an act of Congress, but that does not mean he doesn’t have any control over discretionary spending.

You’ve countered your argument by saying that he has no control over spending but then claiming he has to spend a lot on projects you want. Which is it?

But let’s say your argument is true. Trump is not running on cutting anything. He’s already attacked any cuts for ethanol subsidies. No to any kind of entitlement reforms

[LMAO]

@LMAO


"The GOP base and voters that  tend to vote GOP WANT more spending."

Are you insane,or merely blinded by hatred and jealousy of the "Rude Orange Rich Man?

Good boy

You included every adjective that reflects the limit of your debating skills

[sneakypete]

We just have to cut what we can, politically. it's not a binary situation. There should be plenty we can cut without upsetting people.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

And there are plenty  of illegal aliens and their supporters that we can upset by cutting even more.

However,there is only ONE candidate that seems to be running for President that can only serve ONE term at the maximum,and NOTHING is more important to him that his ego and how he is written about in the history books.

[sneakypete]

I, too, will support whomever the ultimate nominee is (unless it's somebody who is clearly outside the Pale, like, say, Biden).

@Kamaji

Well,Joe Biden running for he Republican  nomination would certainly be "outside the pale".

[LMAO]

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

And there are plenty  of illegal aliens and their supporters that we can upset by cutting even more.

However,there is only ONE candidate that seems to be running for President that can only serve ONE term at the maximum,and NOTHING is more important to him that his ego and how he is written about in the history books.

Can you show me in Donald Trump’s platform were he’s promising to deport illegal immigrants? You’re putting a lot of what you believe in what you want a Trump second term to be versus what he’s even saying

Besides, illegal immigrants are not the reason we have a near $32 trillion debt

The fact is Donald Trump has no history or desire to cut spending

[sneakypete]

I think what’s partially animating some Trumpers overreaction to Ron DeSantis is Donald Trump is promising to keep sending the checks, regardless of where the money comes from.

 

@LMAO

So,you want the govenrment to cut off Social Security  checks to Americans (NOT to non-Americans via welfare) ,as well as to people like me,who are 100 percent service-connected veterans,and unable to work due to their military service?

Good to know.

[LMAO]

@LMAO

So,you want the govenrment to cut off Social Security  checks to Americans (NOT to non-Americans via welfare) ,as well as to people like me,who are 100 percent service-connected veterans,and unable to work due to their military service?

Good to know.

Your strawman argument non-withstanding, what are Donald Trump’s plans to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent?

So far, his  only plan is “no” and repeating Democrat party talking points

[Kamaji]

@LMAO

So,you want the govenrment to cut off Social Security  checks to Americans (NOT to non-Americans via welfare) ,as well as to people like me,who are 100 percent service-connected veterans,and unable to work due to their military service?

Good to know.

@sneakypete

Why are you putting words into someone else's mouth?  I do not recall @LMAO ever saying that he was in favor of simply cutting off all social security or veterans' benefits recipients, regardless of age or need.

That is Donald Trump's and the democrats' lies about proposed social security/benefits reforms, not the actual substance of reforms that have been under discussion.

So, since you like to so easily put words into peoples' mouths, let's try that game in reverse:  why are you calling to continue giving taxpayer money in the form of social security benefits to the likes of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci simply because they reach retirement age and paid social security taxes on their wages for at least 10 years, regardless of how much personal wealth they have independently accumulated?

Why should ordinary U.S. taxpayers be providing a social security benefit to extremely wealthy people who clearly do not need it?  The same goes for providing those same people with benefits under Medicare, to which they are also entitled under current law?

To play your own game:  why are you in favor of taking so much money from ordinary taxpayers and giving it to uberwealthy people?