Trump 2024 ???

[Leadeye]

Not quite. Hopefully a bible verse won't trigger the usual suspects

Matthew 27:24
King James Version
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Pilate's belief was that washing his hands could absolve him of responsibility for what he allowed to happen and possibly could have prevented (disregarding for the moment whether something foreordained by God could actually be successfully prevented)

Its modern equivalent is voting for someone, perhaps a libertarian, who has no chance of winning, little chance of enacting many of the policies he/she espouses, and depriving a viable but less 'perfect' candidate a needed vote. Then feeling righteous because no matter what foul things happen to the country they feel they kept their own hands 'clean' and bear no responsibility for the consequences

An interesting perspective. I've not heard it explained that way.

 

[jamil]

Not quite. Hopefully a bible verse won't trigger the usual suspects

Matthew 27:24
King James Version
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Pilate's belief was that washing his hands could absolve him of responsibility for what he allowed to happen and possibly could have prevented (disregarding for the moment whether something foreordained by God could actually be successfully prevented)

Its modern equivalent is voting for someone, perhaps a libertarian, who has no chance of winning, little chance of enacting many of the policies he/she espouses, and depriving a viable but less 'perfect' candidate a needed vote. Then feeling righteous because no matter what foul things happen to the country they feel they kept their own hands 'clean' and bear no responsibility for the consequences

I'll agree with you that Libertarians tend to be satisfied with just being on the ballot. However, your reasoning is flawed WRT depriving a viable but less 'perfect' candidate a needed vote. It's not the case that Libertarians, but for having a Libertarian to vote for, would be a monolithic vote for a Republican otherwise. They aren't R's. They aren't D's. They're L's. That's a whole different monster. They're more fiscally conservative than most Republicans. They're more socially liberal than most Democrats.

So where they'll tend to vote individually, if a Libertarian candidate is not available, depends on each individual's priority, whether prioritizing social liberalism, or fiscal conservatism. I think another other axis of libertarian thinking is totalitarianism. And it looks to me like the Democrats are a bit more totalitarian minded than Republicans ATM. So maybe now, libertarians might tend to vote R if a L isn't available. I don't have a feeling yet for how "woke" fits into that. Some may see it as totalitarian, some might see it as socially liberal.

 

[KG1]

using the same logic, why even bother speaking to members of congress about issues affecting them? If you voted for the person, they must be perfect too and no discussion is needed. As if voting for someone doesn't come down to a binary decision and attempting to work within that framework is somehow treacherous

Just to be clear my post was'nt directed at you even though it followed yours. it was directed toward others.

 

[jamil]

This demonstrates a contrivance the corporate media has cooked up to hold against conservatives. The conservatives candidate is heavily criticized for not living up to the goals of conservatives and conservatives are made to feel bad for supporting candidates that do not live up to those values. While the leftist candidate has no values to live up too…

Wait. So is it the case that you think Trump IS a great and upstanding individual? Or is it that he's really not, but, because he's for "us", we can't criticize him? This makes it sound like the former. I don't think we can even have a conversation about it if that's what you think. I didn't get my opinion about Trump's character from corporate media. I got it from his own behavior.

 

[jamil]

Next election will probably be all about age and they will use Biden as the example by throwing him under the bus when the time comes.

I think the time to throw Biden under the bus will have to be soon. I don't see D's waiting until December 2023 to do it. But if they play the age game, it's gonna depend on who D's are running against. I think age is probably their best play. It's about all that's going to get young progressive zoomers to the polls.

 

[jamil]

I am worn out on the other end of the spectrum by those condescending individuals who tell others to STFU and show some unwavering respect for all things DT. Like I said before. I will always show respect for DT by voting for his policies and those who try to suppress my other opinions can just step off.

Sure, there are a lot of issues to weigh besides the 2nd Amendment but as was pointed out a certain avid member used to always place the 2nd Amendment first and didn't take kindly to those that didn't. (Except DT)

I'm not worn out. I can do this all day.

 

[jamil]

So being able to recognize flaws in something or someone somehow makes someone a weak sensitive type?

I think a weak, sensitive type would be characterized more as someone who can't bear due criticism.

 

[Beastmodeski]

A major problem that I believe Trump unveiled is that the swamp is much deeper then most thought, including himself. I’m not sure if a just and moral competent leader with the right agenda would be able to survive let alone win a primary in our current system.

 

[BugI02]

It's not the case that Libertarians, but for having a Libertarian to vote for, would be a monolithic vote for a Republican otherwise.

You know who the Cato Institute is, yes?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/libertarian-vote

Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000.

 

[jamil]

No, I want you to stop virtue signaling about how reluctantly you voted for that horrible person, and how painful it is/was, and just admit that you're a pragmatist just like the rest of us

Or just pick up the reins of the Manus Lavus party

Nobody is buying the propaganda that you carefully consider every aspect of every position you take. You are just as biased toward your own pattern of beliefs as the next guy. Even that wouldn't be so bad if you didn't seem to feel the need to lecture us about just how unbiased you are. Maybe hide that light under a bushel once in a while

Virtue signaling? So if someone criticizes Trump, the cultists come out of the woodwork crying all kinds of "Nevertrumpers" And then some say that if you have a critical view of Trump, you must have gotten it from MSM. Because there's nothing to criticize in Trump. And then some say that you can't criticize him because he's on "our" side.

It's not signaling "virtue" or whatever. If anything its signaling the reality that you guys don't know what reality is. Multiple things can be true at the same time. One can have a critical view of someone, yet decide to vote for the person he has a critical view of, for pragmatic reasons. And no. I've never claimed not to be pragmatic. My sig line used to be "pragmatic individualist". That was possibly before your time.

I've also never claimed to carefully consider every aspect of a position. That's impossible. I think what's happening here is that whenever I criticize something you hold dear, like Trump or whatever, you take it personally and then start hurling accusations and insults, instead of just addressing the criticism. Either the criticism is due or it's not. That fact has nothing to do with sides, or virtue signaling, or whatever.

As far as bias, yeah. Everyone is biased. We all have our worldviews and we all have innate bias to preserve that worldview. I've never pretended not to be biased. But my criticism of Trump is objective. The things I've criticized him about are true. In fact, it takes bias to overlook those things, some of which I am certain you would criticized a politician on the other side for doing.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I think a weak, sensitive type would be characterized more as someone who can't bear due criticism.

Exactly

 

[KG1]

Wait. So is it the case that you think Trump IS a great and upstanding individual? Or is it that he's really not, but, because he's for "us", we can't criticize him? This makes it sound like the former. I don't think we can even have a conversation about it if that's what you think. I didn't get my opinion about Trump's character from corporate media. I got it from his own behavior.

That can't possibly be because many of your criticisms are also what the corporate media criticizes so even if you claim they are your opinions that you got from observing his own behavior you still are a dirty dog corporate media shill for expressing a similar opinion. Whew!

 

[jamil]

1) You assert that Trump has not earned your respect and imply that he is not above reproach

2) You then stipulate there are NO perfect policy makers - so why all the wanking about Trump's character issues. And it is just wanking without any proffered solution to the problem, perhaps in the form of recommending a politician who does meet your high standards. We'll wait

3) It isn't that we can't handle the criticism as much as it is that the criticism is just a tedious rehash of the same old tired stuff. If I could, I would award you (and all the 'I voted libertarian' set) an INGO 'cleanest hands' merit badge if it would just help set the virtue signaling below 11

Support no specific solutions, just whinge about the problems. You have the makings of a great back-bencher

This sounds like you really don't understand how a worldview that doesn't venerate venerate Trump works.

1. Trump has not earned my respect in a way that demands I apply it automatically, unwavering. In other words, he's not earned my blind trust. He has earned partial respect in the parts about his character that I admire. And he's earned criticism for the parts that I don't.

It's a fact that Trump is not above reproach. Zero humans are above reproach. My point was the automatic respect demanded by the Trump cult is just not gonna happen. Being on my side does not make one above reproach. Trust is always a requirement. No one deserves yours or my undying devotion. Or is undying devotion that cheap?

2. Wanking? Look dude, I get you don't like when people poop on yer venerated beings. But calm down. He's just a man. And I'm not pooping on him. I'm leveling criticisms where they're due, as part of the whole character. Like these parts are bad. These parts are good. It's the whole. Not just the good parts.

3. So? The undying Trump devotion is also a tedious rehash of the same old tired stuff. BTW, the only time I've ever voted libertarian was against Holcomb. FWIW. But dude, the "cleanest hands"? I dunno. Is that some kind of projection?

I kinda think all this **** is you being unable to handle someone criticizing someone you hold in high regard. Lighten up. I haven't been whining about the problems in this thread. Where you get that? Wait. You don't like it that I called him a porn star ****er. Is that it? That's what's tweaked you off? Okay. I have to ask. Do you think he didn't **** a porn star? Or do you think no one should care if he did? The answer to that would explain some things.

 

[jamil]

I don't think you give sufficient credence to the level of resistance and outright sabotage that Trump prevailed against. DeSantis is operating in the same environment that Biden is in that he is at the top of an organization that controls just about all the statewide levers of power and is aligned with his goal. As such, he has a pretty free hand

That will not be replicated at the national level if he wins both the primary and the election. It would be nice if you would give some consideration to the idea that he may be less effective at delivering 'policies that you like' when he is swimming upstream. What's the over/under on being governor being sufficient to engender effective presidents?

I'll vote for the man who has already proven he can do it, not the long shot. I'll say it again, IMO DeSantis is the Scott Walker of his time

"You could be wrong, you know. You have been before"

I fully understand the **** show Democrats, CoC republicans, the media, put Trump through. Most of it was ********. Some of it was aided by Trump himself because he hasn't any self control, which is a character flaw he has. I think Desantis has an advantage over Trump in that he seems to be able to control himself and not step on his dick. There are some things I don't like about Desantis. The whole Disney thing I think could have been handled less mafia-like.

It is possible that Desantis won't be as effective as Trump, but I have a hard time thinking that's the case. My biggest worry about Desantis is that he won't follow through with all that needs done. I don't know if Trump would either. Trump was supposed to clean the swamp and I suspect he left a bigger swamp than we started with. Whether it's Trump or Desantis, he needs to clean out all the ****. Lots of people need fired. Gut the FBI, and CIA especially and start over with America-first personnel. That's not gonna be easy.

 

[jamil]

Got it. I get what you were going for. Basically, get onboard and admit that you voted as a pragmatist and drop all the virtue signaling for someone with flaws or wash your hands of the whole thing.

No. I think he's saying that I'm riding the fence so that whatever happens I can wash my hands. But that's a mischaracterization, or perhaps his own projection of what he thinks my worldview is. In my worldview, no one is above reproach. No human deserves such veneration. Also, what makes up what is true is all sides of the thing. You can't have good without bad. Nothing is all good or all bad, except for Joe Biden. So with Trump I can't ignore the bad or I don't have the full essence of what the thing is. And if I see people venerating a person who doesn't deserve it, I think I have ever right to call that out. But Bug has some other idea of what might motivate me.

 

[jamil]

That can't possibly be because many of your criticisms are also what the corporate media criticizes so even if you claim they are your opinions that you got from observing his own behavior you still are a dirty dog corporate media shill for expressing a similar opinion. Whew!

 

[manifest destiny]

Didn't the porn "star" agree to be asterisked? I'm not sure where to find fault if all parties were in agreement.

 

[jamil]

An interesting perspective. I've not heard it explained that way.

I think there are such people. I also think Bug thinks that I'm a centrist and that centrists are fence-sitters, and fence-sitters don't want to commit for fear of getting their hands dirty. But I'm not actually a centrist. But I'm not a binary thinker either. So because I might take up some positions he agrees with, and other positions he doesn't disagree with, I must be more like a centrist, and not be able to make up my mind for those reasons. I think it's more that, being a binary thinker, he can't wrap his head around shades of grey. And I'm not saying that disparagingly. Not everyone is wired for thinking beyond binary. My wife is very this/that, black/white. It either is or isn't.

I could be proven wrong. If Bug were to describe my thinking about a matter in a way I'd agree with, that would be evidence to me that he understands that mode of thinking. So far he hasn't.

 

[KG1]

No. I think he's saying that I'm riding the fence so that whatever happens I can wash my hands. But that's a mischaracterization, or perhaps his own projection of what he thinks my worldview is. In my worldview, no one is above reproach. No human deserves such veneration. Also, what makes up what is true is all sides of the thing. You can't have good without bad. Nothing is all good or all bad, except for Joe Biden. So with Trump I can't ignore the bad or I don't have the full essence of what the thing is. And if I see people venerating a person who doesn't deserve it, I think I have ever right to call that out. But Bug has some other idea of what might motivate me.

My vote is my vote. No matter what happens I can't escape that fact and I will own it. If Trump screws it up it's on him though.

 

[jamil]

Didn't the porn "star" agree to be asterisked? I'm not sure where to find fault if all parties were in agreement.

Really? So it's okay for you to cheat on your wife/husband as long as the person you cheat with is agreed?

Oh, hold up. Did you forget that Trump's wife is one of the parties?

My problem with Trump ****ing a porn star has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels. She does that for a living. I don't think Trump took advantage of her in any way. Both got what they bargained for in the transaction, presumably. It's the whole cheating on your wife while she's pregnant thing that indicates a character flaw.