USA Dump Trump

[Lamb]

ok lets look at Trump, no personality. He has been charged in New York for his business, it has been shown conclusively that he at the very least encouraged the Jan 6 riot and as such is guilty of sedition and thus ineligible to hold office and should be tried and put in jail, His closest people have shown how unstable he is mentally as well as shown how he tried to manipulate the vote. Conclusion: This man should never again hold an office

I'm surprised you didn't add "Russian collusion" since all that you listed is what the media has been spouting, yet he is STILL eligible to run for office and hasn't been put in jail for anything.

 

[Albion]

ok lets look at Trump, no personality.

No personality?

The #1 charge against him from his detractors has been that he hogs the limelight too much, is self-centered, and is too colorful (to put it politely)! It's not that he's some sort of Mike Pence or Jeb Bush character.

He has been charged in New York for his business, it has been shown conclusively that he at the very least encouraged the Jan 6 riot

Shown "Conclusively?" No , it hasn't. That's just the allegation of the opposition party which we can put alongside blaming him for the Coronavirus and World War II.

And as such is guilty of sedition and thus ineligible to hold office and should be tried and put in jail,..

Whew. We've now entered La La Land with these claims, and I don't mean Los Angeles.

 

[tango]

It's pretty hard to argue that they're just the loudest factions. For one thing, Trump brings thousands and thousands of people to his speeches, outdoing every other politician these days. And he endorsed over 170 candidates during this past campaign season, of which only something like 5 lost their races.

To what extent did the candidates he endorsed win because he endorsed them? Did his endorsement help significantly? It's often hard to know just what difference it made, and indeed whether a lack of endorsement would have caused a larger or smaller margin. Mehmet Oz managed to lose to John Fetterman who doesn't seem to have recovered from his stroke enough to be meaningfully functional in the Senate.

To be clear, it's a serious question - I'm not trying to imply one answer or another, I'm trying to figure out how much of the issue with Trump specifically is that he's a polarising figure, how much is Democrat hatred that he defeated Clinton, how much is related to actual issues with Trump and how much is related to mudslinging to stop him from dismantling the establishment, and so on.

IMHO, that's somewhat different. While many Democrats may not be part of that "woke" movement, it's understood by most of us and the media also that the threat from the "woke" people lies not in their popularity but instead it's in their tactics that are dangerous to our country. That's what makes those people significant.

Some of the tactics are definitely dangerous, although the question remains whether the tactics are more dangerous than the fear of the tactics. If the fear of something that may never materialise keeps people self-censoring it's an effective tactic even if it lacks teeth.

For a while it has seemed that companies cave to the woke brigade when they claim to be offended by something. Perhaps what is needed is for people on the other side (even if that just means more sensible people) telling the companies not to cave or we will take business away from them. The companies will soon realise that it isn't a simple proposition that caving results in just as much lost business as not caving.

Well, here's a consideration that no one discusses. Over the past quarter century or so, the demand for presidential primaries to be the vehicle for choosing the party nominee became irresistible, and for several reasons.

So now, "democracy" reigns in choosing a nominee and the backroom deals are largely a thing of the past. BUT those backroom dealers did know and took account of which candidate would be the most likely to win in November, not just which one had caught the public's attention, maybe coming out of nowhere.

Whatever is going on seems to be producing candidates who have ever-lower appeal to moderate voters and less appeal still to floating voters who might lean slightly the other way. If all the system does is produce candidates that the party faithful adore we might as well simply figure out how many are registered to each party and count them as votes without bothering with the expense and annoyance of such regular campaigns.

 

[tango]

ok lets look at Trump, no personality. He has been charged in New York for his business, it has been shown conclusively that he at the very least encouraged the Jan 6 riot and as such is guilty of sedition and thus ineligible to hold office and should be tried and put in jail, His closest people have shown how unstable he is mentally as well as shown how he tried to manipulate the vote. Conclusion: This man should never again hold an office

Has it been shown conclusively that he encouraged the riot? After the accusation I read the entirety of his speech looking for anything that could be seen as an encouragement to riot and just couldn't see anything.

I must admit I have rather mixed views on Trump but really can't see what he was supposed to have said that could be interpreted as incitement, even when actively trying to find something in his speech that could be interpreted, even loosely, as an encouragement to riot.

 

[Albion]

To what extent did the candidates he endorsed win because he endorsed them?

I don't think anyone can answer that with absolute certainty, but the record strongly suggests that he played a part in the outcome, and the number of those he endorsed who won versus the number that failed is so lopsided that it would be unreasonable to put that off to just good luck or him going with the likely winner, which is something just anybody could have done.

Some of those whom he endorsed would most likely have won anyway, but he also endorsed challengers who were trailing in the polls at the time of the endorsement and surprised some of the pundits by winning.

Did his endorsement help significantly? It's often hard to know just what difference it made, and indeed whether a lack of endorsement would have caused a larger or smaller margin. Mehmet Oz managed to lose to John Fetterman who doesn't seem to have recovered from his stroke enough to be meaningfully functional in the Senate.

No, Trump didn't win 100% of the time. Does it take a 100% success record--and nothing less--for us to recognize what happened?

Oz, by the way, never was the favorite to win. Despite all the obvious negatives surrounding Fetterman, he was always the favorite. But Oz did have Trump's endorsement from early on when he was way, way, behind in the polls and he wound up losing only narrowly.

To be clear, it's a serious question - I'm not trying to imply one answer or another, I'm trying to figure out how much of the issue with Trump specifically is that he's a polarising figure, how much is Democrat hatred that he defeated Clinton, how much is related to actual issues with Trump and how much is related to mudslinging to stop him from dismantling the establishment, and so on.

It's a good question to ask. My own thinking is that the Democrats would have done to any Republican who managed to upset Hillary very much the same as they did to Trump. Trump has been easier to lampoon than some, but the Democrats have specialized in ridiculing and slandering the Republican nominee ever since doing that worked pretty well on Nixon.

For a while it has seemed that companies cave to the woke brigade when they claim to be offended by something. Perhaps what is needed is for people on the other side (even if that just means more sensible people) telling the companies not to cave or we will take business away from them. The companies will soon realise that it isn't a simple proposition that caving results in just as much lost business as not caving.

I agree, and there are signs that this is already happening. Several large companies that sell to the public, meaning that the disaffection of customers can have an impact, have felt that backlash.

Whether it will produce an overall change, I guess we'll have to wait a little bit longer to see.

Whatever is going on seems to be producing candidates who have ever-lower appeal to moderate voters and less appeal still to floating voters who might lean slightly the other way. If all the system does is produce candidates that the party faithful adore we might as well simply figure out how many are registered to each party and count them as votes without bothering with the expense and annoyance of such regular campaigns.

 

[tango]

I don't think anyone can answer that with absolute certainty, but the record strongly suggests that he played a part in the outcome, and the number of those he endorsed who won versus the number that failed is so lopsided that it would be unreasonable to put that off to just good luck or him going with the likely winner, which is something just anybody could have done.

The numbers you presented certainly look impressive at first sight. My question (which I know can't be answered objectively because such things are hard to measure) was more about how many of them would have done very well with or without any particular endorsement. If you've got a deep red area the chances are the Republican candidate is going to win regardless.

Some of those whom he endorsed would most likely have won anyway, but he also endorsed challengers who were trailing in the polls at the time of the endorsement and surprised some of the pundits by winning.

No, Trump didn't win 100% of the time. Does it take a 100% success record--and nothing less--for us to recognize what happened?

100% isn't needed, I suppose my question is something of a variation of figuring whether someone with an arrow in the middle of a dozen targets is a great archer, or if they just fired a dozen arrows and painted targets around where they hit. In other words, did Trump's endorsement help the candidates to win or did Trump seek to endorse the candidates he thought would win anyway?

Oz, by the way, never was the favorite to win. Despite all the obvious negatives surrounding Fetterman, he was always the favorite. But Oz did have Trump's endorsement from early on when he was way, way, behind in the polls and he wound up losing only narrowly.

Whatever the political merits or otherwise of Fetterman I find it alarming that someone who is clearly so badly impaired following his stroke could be elected at all. Maybe there are enough diehard Democrats out there who don't care that their candidate seems that he hasn't recovered enough to speak coherently. Maybe they hope he will recover more in time and be able to do the job properly. Maybe everything is really so polarised that they would rather have someone with a D after their name, however badly impaired and however unknown the prognosis, than risk letting Republicans gain a single-seat majority. If that's the case it really doesn't say much for Biden being the uniter he promised to be.

It's a good question to ask. My own thinking is that the Democrats would have done to any Republican who managed to upset Hillary very much the same as they did to Trump. Trump has been easier to lampoon than some, but the Democrats have specialized in ridiculing and slandering the Republican nominee ever since doing that worked pretty well on Nixon.

I remember in the runup to the 2016 election about the only question that was being discussed was whether Clinton would win by a large margin or a huge margin so I can only imagine the shock in the campaign's headquarters when the answer "er, about your margin of victory...." came in. That said when you field a candidate that even members of your own party intensely dislike you can hardly be surprised if at least some of your regular voters don't show up at all.

I agree, and there are signs that this is already happening. Several large companies that sell to the public, meaning that the disaffection of customers can have an impact, have felt that backlash.

Whether it will produce an overall change, I guess we'll have to wait a little bit longer to see.

We can hope for at least something of a return to sensibility.

Maybe what it needs is people to tell companies that we won't buy their stuff if they continue to pander to the woke brigade. I'm sure most rational people can see the difference between an executive who is behaving inappropriately now, and an executive who did something 25 years ago that was considered normal at the time but is no longer considered appropriate.

 

[Lanman87]

He does, yes. "Comes across" that way.

But that's mainly in his mannerisms. He is the only president that I know of who gave back all of his salary to the country. He is now several million dollars poorer than before he was elected, I've read. Meanwhile, Obama and others became rich, somehow, by being in Washington, DC!

Trump made a point of contacting and/or visiting victims of tragedy, while Biden seldom will even interrupt his daily schedule (9AM to 3PM, is it?) to make any contact at all.

Trump was always appreciative and respectful of our servicemen and women and the events our country memorializes because of them. Biden, not much...not unless he wants some of them as decoration during one of his televised skreeds. And that's just some of the contrast.

We need someone who does all those thing yet doesn't come across as vengeful, spiteful, and immature.

 

[Josiah]

We need someone who does all those thing yet doesn't come across as vengeful, spiteful, and immature.

Exactly.


We can be a party of IDEAS, of ISSUES rather than of a man. I agree with Trump on a lot of issues (not all, certainly not on elections when he doesn't get his way) - I don't think those ISSUES are the problem, I think Trump is the problem.

However, I don't think it helps much to rebuke Trump. I think we simply need to move on.



.

 

[Albion]

The numbers you presented certainly look impressive at first sight. My question (which I know can't be answered objectively because such things are hard to measure) was more about how many of them would have done very well with or without any particular endorsement. If you've got a deep red area the chances are the Republican candidate is going to win regardless.

Well, yes, but Trump apparently didn't go out of his way to do that. He did make endorsements in many of the most hotly contested and publicized races (the Dr. Oz one, for example) and even the liberal press opined that his endorsement seemed to be what made the difference (in the Ohio Senate race, for instance).

Whatever the political merits or otherwise of Fetterman I find it alarming that someone who is clearly so badly impaired following his stroke could be elected at all.

Yeah. Some of the postmortems said that Oz didn't strike the right chords in his campaigning, although he did campaign hard. But it's hard to believe that someone who looks like he always did, suffers the effects of his stroke that he does, and who also holds some quite extreme political views could be elected in a state like Pennsylvania. However, Fetterman wouldn't debate until millions of absentee ballots had already been sent in and received.

Then too, Oz did take heat because of that dual citizenship business and the Muslim label (I don't think he's a practicing Muslim, but I could be wrong about that) and there wasn't much he could do about that.

Maybe there are enough diehard Democrats out there who don't care that their candidate seems that he hasn't recovered enough to speak coherently. Maybe they hope he will recover more in time and be able to do the job properly. Maybe everything is really so polarised that they would rather have someone with a D after their name, however badly impaired and however unknown the prognosis, than risk letting Republicans gain a single-seat majority. If that's the case it really doesn't say much for Biden being the uniter he promised to be.

There is some talk about Fetterman resigning in a while, especially if he doesn't continue to improve, and that would mean the appointment of another Democrat in his place.

We can hope for at least something of a return to sensibility.

Wouldn't that be nice? But I'd put my money on it going the other way.

 

[Albion]

We need someone who does all those thing yet doesn't come across as vengeful, spiteful, and immature.

Who'd you have in mind? Biden certainly fits that vengeful, spiteful, and immature profile, but over 40 percent of the public still thinks he's doing just fine in office--according to some polls. And that's the case even though the country is in the dumper, which it wasn't prior to Biden.

 

[tango]

Well, yes, but Trump apparently didn't go out of his way to do that. He did make endorsements in many of the most hotly contested and publicized races (the Dr. Oz one, for example) and even the liberal press opined that his endorsement seemed to be what made the difference (in the Ohio Senate race, for instance).

I guess what makes it hard to know is that it's easy to imagine that a Trump endorsement would get some people motivated to get out and vote but could also get others motivated to get out and vote for the other guy.

Yeah. Some of the postmortems said that Oz didn't strike the right chords in his campaigning, although he did campaign hard. But it's hard to believe that someone who looks like he always did, suffers the effects of his stroke that he does, and who also holds some quite extreme political views could be elected in a state like Pennsylvania. However, Fetterman wouldn't debate until millions of absentee ballots had already been sent in and received.

Then too, Oz did take heat because of that dual citizenship business and the Muslim label (I don't think he's a practicing Muslim, but I could be wrong about that) and there wasn't much he could do about that.

There is some talk about Fetterman resigning in a while, especially if he doesn't continue to improve, and that would mean the appointment of another Democrat in his place.

I think the thing with Pennsylvania is that in many ways it's much like the rest of the country. Big blue areas in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and much of the rest of the state is mostly red. It's just that there are enough people in the big cities to outvote the rural areas.

It would make more sense, if he does resign, that an election would be held to replace him rather than letting the party simply nominate a replacement.

Wouldn't that be nice? But I'd put my money on it going the other way.

Sadly I fear you are probably right. The lunatics are gaining more control in the asylum...

 

[Lanman87]

Who'd you have in mind?

I think pretty much any of the other Republicans mentioned as possible candidates would have a greater chance of winning and would make a better president.

 

[Albion]

It would make more sense, if he does resign, that an election would be held to replace him rather than letting the party simply nominate a replacement.

I'd think so, but it all depends on the election laws of that state. In some states, a special election IS called, but some others have the governor appoint, and because I read somewhere about the speculation I referred to, I'm assuming that PA is one of the states in which it's the governor's choice.

 

[Albion]

I think pretty much any of the other Republicans mentioned as possible candidates would have a greater chance of winning and would make a better president.

I get it, but many people who put Trump down at every opportunity don't seem to know anything in particular about how he won election in 2016 and assume that just about any Republican could have done the same...while being nicer in the process. Well, let me remind you of something...

Trump wasn't the choice of the Party bosses. He won the nomination because Republican and Independent voters wanted him. And then he beat the Democratic nominee, Hillary, although all the smart money was on her. She still can't believe it.

But Trump not only stood up to the threats and interference from the other party, he also campaigned furiously. He was making speeches in four or five states--in a single day--towards the end of the campaigning while Hillary was taking it easy. That's one reason he won.

So what about all those other guys and other people like them?? Let's see.

Jeb! folded like a bad suit only part way through the primaries. He thought he was going to be handed the nomination. And in the previous election, Romney flat out 'gave up', quit the race for all intents and purposes, part way through the fall of 2012. And why not? That's what McCain had done in 2008!

So, if you imagine that Pence or Haley or Gov. Hogan or Gov. Sununu is going to take the next election by storm...they won't!

 

[prism]

I'm SURE Trump will run again. His ego won't allow him to do otherwise. And his cult following will make him a major player - perhaps unbeatable. But IMO Republicans would be very wise to pass on him this time. We need to thank him.... AND MOVE ON.

Question. If Trump has such a large cult following how is it that he lost to Biden in 2020? Maybe voter fraud? Maybe Biden has a larger cult following?

 

[Lamb]

Question. If Trump has such a large cult following how is it that he lost to Biden in 2020? Maybe voter fraud? Maybe Biden has a larger cult following?

It's not that people truly wanted Biden...there were a lot of people who just didn't want Trump to win again. There is so much hate for one man and I think if the media hadn't gotten involved in spreading disinformation (Russian collusion) that things would be different. The media is very liberal.

 

[Josiah]

Question. If Trump has such a large cult following how is it that he lost to Biden in 2020? Maybe voter fraud? Maybe Biden has a larger cult following?

Obviously, the "cult following" as you put it wasn't big enough to get him re-elected. I suspect it's been in decline since.

I don't think Biden has any PERSONAL support at all. I don't know anyone who admires him personally. He was chosen as the nominee because it was clear all the others were too radical to get elected, Joe was seen by the public as less so. BUT I think it's clear he's just a pansy for the liberals... he gets the office, they get the actions they want. Seems to be a mutually agreeable situation. Although I doubt that will get him re-nominated; he may be the first sitting president not to be renominated by his party for a second term in a very, very long time. Newsom, representing the uber liberal wing of the Democrat Party seems best positioned now, but maybe Harris or some other radical leftist will prevail.

It's not that people truly wanted Biden...there were a lot of people who just didn't want Trump to win again.

I agree....

There are of course millions of Democrats who will vote for the Democrat if he were Satan himself (goes for many Republicans too) - and since Democrats way outnumber Republicans, that factor alone gets the Democrat close to winning. Even Jimmy Carter almost won in 1980.

But YES, I think the 2020 election was all about Trump. A vote for Biden was simply a vote against Trump.



Personally, I have little regard for Trump as a person. I agree with him on a lot of issues, and I'll forever be grateful for his Supreme Court choices, but I think he personally is caustic, vengeful, spiteful, and (sorry to say it) sometimes just plain immature. I SO agreed with his beautiful wife that he needs to just shut up and throw away his cell phone. But my main concern is not him, it's conservatism and our nation. I'm more than willing to thank him for his presidency, but I think it's time to MOVE ON. The Republican Party needs to be about IDEAS, ISSUES not a man. No one should own the Republican Party, it should not be married to a man - especially one of Trumps personality and spirit. I think the Republican Party needs to be about IDEAS, not Trump. And I don't think that's even possible if Trump is Elephant in the room, the nominee. He won't have the ego to not run (and he'll shout he got the nomination and won the election - even if he doesn't). We need to nominate someone else, someone who is about ideas rather than self.




.

 

[shilohsfoal]

Trump has narcissistic personality disorder. NPD
He reminds me of the king of the north in the Bible. He worships himself.

 

[prism]

I'll go wayyy out on a limb with this one.
I like Trump but would probably support DeSantis over Trump.
(Now the limb). I think Trump will win in 2024, go ahead and confirm the covenant (Abrahamic) with Israel and amid all the political raucous barely survive an assassination attempt, turn on Israel and the rest is (biblical) history.

**********This is not prophetic or even a prediction but just some thoughts of mine as I sit wayyy out on a limb.*********

 

[Josiah]

I live in a congressional district with an incumbent Democrat but a district the Republican Party targeted to "flip" (one of the Red Wave districts). A district where Independents are the most numerous, followed almost evenly by Democrats and Republicans. TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS were spent in this district, Biden himself campaigned here. The Democrats ran a commercial (endlessly, all the time) that just showed footage of the January 6 raid on the capitol, focusing in on all the Trump signs and flags... ending with "Vote for Democracy." Not vote for their candidate; in fact, not a word about either candidate, but "vote for democracy." Now, the Republican candidate never mentioned Trump and denounced that January 6 thing, but the Democratic Party ran that ad like TEN TIMES AN HOUR, on every channel. It seemed like every other commercial was that one. For weeks. It worked.



.