Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

The work from home, doing OK, my Door Dash delivery guy knows my name set don't want their boat rocked

WTF?

 

[KG1]

WTF?

IKR. You ok Bug?

 

[jamil]

For all the darts you throw at bug, you seem to suffer the same rhetorical maladies you accuse him of. First, AGAIN, where have I claimed that the kraken (not so subtle prejoritive used to ascribe a position to me that you believe is easier to attack) occurred? I've said repeatedly there's ample evidence to indicate that the intelligence community involved themselves in the election to prevent the reelection of DJT because they view him as an existential threat to their order. I've never claimed I believed your boogeywoman had the kraken to release. When you have to continuously erect strawmen, it makes you argument look weaker.

As I said, the "Kraken", pejorative as it may be, is shorthand for the specific claims made by people working for Trump after Trump lost the election. It seems to me that you've been vigorously defending it. And perhaps you're only defending the idea that there's ample evidence to indicate that the spies involved themselves in the election. Which may be the case. But the specific claims had to do with actual votes getting flipped from Trump to Biden. Do you have actual evidence of that? Is THAT what you're vigorously defending? If it's the former, I'm on board with that. If it's the latter, it's pretty much Kraken.

I was not trying to ascribe anything to you per se, other than what it seemed to me you were defending.

1. There was no voter enthusiasm for Biden: he couldn't draw even meager crowds, polling (which always benefits dems) wasn't in his favor by believable margins, but he garnered more votes than any other candidate in history by a huge margin. Maybe we can chalk that up to all the illegal mail voting, unconstitutional rule changes , ballot harvesting, pick your excuse, but that still looks very suspect.

There was no voter enthusiasm FOR Biden. There was HUGE enthusiasm against Trump. To deny that would be astonishing.

Most of that 81M votes Biden got were droves of D's voting in the urban centers, especially from big blue states. Huge margins there. It's not controversial that the election was decided in the swing states. It should also not be controversial that Biden could win in swing states with ballot harvesting. It's how Bobert almost lost in rural Colorado in

2. Then you have all the vote counting irregularities: tallies changing when supposedly no votes were being counted, election coverage for one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history inexplicably signing off for the night because "they stopped counting" only to resume with massive changes in vote totals that flipped a number of states to Biden, massive vote dumps for Biden with unrealistically small coinciding bumps for Trump. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that these can't be totally ascribed to the "the things they admit to". PC

I don't disagree with the irregularities. That's not going to be investigated seriously, so I don't expect any answers. I don't include irregularities as "Kraken".

3. Then we have evidence the the IC saw Trump as a threat. His administration was undermined from before he took office by powerful elements of the IC: Russian collusion, peepee tapes, the rest of the Steele dossier, Ukraine call, the laptop letter, and on and on. They seemed to be throwing everything they had at him short of attempting another JFK solution. Motive.

Again, we're talking about Kraken, which asserted that vote tallies for Trump were flipped to Biden, and similar allegations. Just because CI could have done it isn't proof they did. Prove there was a crime first. Then you can say that's evidence, though not proof.

4. We know the IC have the tools to manipulate foreign elections and have done so, we know they have proposed to do and done terrible things, TO AMERICANS, with no regard for our civil liberties or constitutional constraints (operation mockingbird, operation northwoods). Seeing them describe DJT as such a grave threat to national security, democracy, or whatever buzzword sufficiently stirs the emotion of the gullible, it strains credulity to think they would not use the tools at their disposal to eliminate the threat. Capacity

Again, prove there was a crime. There may have been.

Now the preceding elements are not the "hard evidence" that you insist must be present to convince you that "a crime was committed. The problem is the alleged perpetrators simultaneously would be holding and hiding the evidence and responsible for revealing and bringing the case.

I think you're making the same mistake Bug does. You assume things not asserted. My standard of confident belief is reasonable evidence that something is true. You guys put together claims by people who have a reason to lie, and admittedly a reasonable belief that the CIA could do something, and then say that the election was stolen by flipping votes. What I think is happening, you guys instinctively believe it, and then use some pretty light evidence to support it.

Let me give you an example of election interference, the evidence of which gives me confidence to believe the accusations. That's the situation in AZ with Kari Lake. At first she made claims. At that point, it's possible her claims are true, but I wouldn't be confident in it just because conservative news reports it. They've lied before.

But then it goes to court and the facts that came out in court weren't challenged. Katie Hobb's challenges were that they couldn't prove intent. So the case was dismissed. That's not incontrovertible, but it's enough that a reasonable person paying attention would tend to believe it.

So basically what you're saying is, that until my corrupt government provides evidence to the public of its corruption, the corruption is more plausibly explained by a set of less disconcerting elements and therefore the corruption probably doesn't exist.

That's the way you're presenting it. But that doesn't represent my views. I'm saying that a few people who are loyal to and worked for DJT made some specific claims, for which we have no evidence except their word that it happened.

So my statement was that we have more reliable information that can explain the same outcome. I'm not asserting that our government is not corrupt. That it is corrupt is self evident. However, that it is corrupt, is not evidence that any given claim of corruption is true simply because of that. Each instance needs its own evidence.

But, because the specific information has implications Trumpers would like to believe, I think it's easy to accept information that confirms those specific claims.

 

[jamil]

IKR. You ok Bug?

I think he has JDS.

 

[jamil]

I don't know how he got a burr up his ass about working from home. I also don't know where he got door dash from. Why would any sensible person trust a snot nose zoomer to deliver food? I don't know any self respecting boomers who use door dash.

 

[Magyars]

 

[KG1]

I don't know how he got a burr up his ass about working from home. I also don't know where he got door dash from. Why would any sensible person trust a snot nose zoomer to deliver food? I don't know any self respecting boomers who use door dash.

Yeah I'll leave it up to you to interpret what he was saying. I'm out this time.

 

[KLB]

View attachment 274724

That is bad logic. You could hate Trump and hate Biden.

 

[jamil]

That is bad logic. You could hate Trump and hate Biden.

Yep.

 

[KG1]

That is bad logic. You could hate Trump and hate Biden.

True. One could hate both and want someone else. Many do.

 

[jamil]

True. One could hate both and want someone else. Many do.

I don’t even hate Trump. I think he has poor character, isn’t all that bright, doesn’t appear to appreciate the constitution, despite pandering when necessary. But, there are things to like about him too. His policies were mostly good. He lacked fiscal restraint. But overall B+.

I can appreciate the sentiment that we can overlook some character flaws because if the person leads well, the character flaws are less important. But if there is someone who will have the same policies without the character baggage, all the better.

 

[KG1]

I don’t even hate Trump. I think he has poor character, isn’t all that bright, doesn’t appear to appreciate the constitution, despite pandering when necessary. But, there are things to like about him too. His policies were mostly good. He lacked fiscal restraint. But overall B+.

I can appreciate the sentiment that we can overlook some character flaws because if the person leads well, the character flaws are less important. But if there is someone who will have the same policies without the character baggage, all the better.

I don't hate him either. I've never said that I hate him so much that I would never vote for him again. I still think he's a far better option than the current ****show. circus with Bidiot as the figurehead ringmaster that the Democrats shove out front.

 

[jamil]

I don't hate him either. I've never said that I hate him so much that I would never vote for him again. I still think he's a far better option than the current ****show. circus with Bidiot as the figurehead ringmaster that the Democrats shove out front.

I strongly suspect that to fiercely loyal Trumpers, you’re (rhetorical “you’re”) as an enemy because you could vote for Trump but are open to other options.

 

[KG1]

I strongly suspect that to fiercely loyal Trumpers, you’re as an enemy because you could vote for Trump but are open to other options.

i've made no bones about it. I am open to giving someone else a chance to show me they are a better option all things considered.

 

[jamil]

i've made no bones about. I am open to giving someone else a chance to show me they are a better option all things considered.

I edited to add that the use of “you” is rhetorical. I meant the statement to apply to people who could vote for Trump, but could vote for someone they think is better.

 

[KG1]

I edited to add that the use of “you” is rhetorical. I meant the statement to apply to people who could vote for Trump, but could vote for someone they think is better.

I think it's no secret that the other leading candidate for consideration would be DeSantis if and when he should enter the race. So unless someone else enters the race to change that then those would be the two choices up for consideration. At that point there are pros and cons that need to be weighed for either or perhaps some unknown yet that hasn't entered.

 

[BugI02]

‘Really weak option’: Wall Street sours on DeSantis as Trump challenger

Ron DeSantis' gubernatorial reelection campaign is still loaded with cash, giving him big advantages over possible competitors. But many now say he no longer seems so formidable — at least on Wall Street.

www.politico.com

Anonymous attribution: acknowledging that is less than desirable, but it is also endemic and while it is logical those quoted would find their job much harder to do if identified it could still be like Ciaramella, a minor player roleplaying someone important. Under those circumstances politico would lap it up without journalistic concerns because almost no one outside of substack and tablet are journalists anymore

Posted mainly for this quote

Where Wall Street puts its money matters because financial industry executives are among the biggest donors in presidential elections. And while bankers and asset managers generally favor lower taxes and lighter-touch regulation, they also value stability and experience — and they spread their money around to candidates of both parties, meaning they’re very much in play in each cycle.

On paper, that should give DeSantis an advantage. People close to Wall Street donors said his national profile and powerhouse fundraising operation that has included support from hedge fund titans like Ken Griffin and Jeff Yass had positioned him as most able to survive a primary with former President Donald Trump.

For those of you keeping score at home, those two ARE Club for Growth. The people who act as if being owned by CfG was something in DeSantis' past when he was a US representative are only fooling themselves and maybe a couple of you

“DeSantis is certainly a better option than Trump at this point,” the executive said. “But he’s a really weak option.”

Perhaps what Wall Street is thinking

The first executive at the large New York bank said Wall Street would love a candidate like former House Speaker Paul Ryan “or a younger Mitt Romney.”

But they acknowledged that Trump would likely obliterate any candidate from the increasingly small centrist segment of the GOP.

“We all saw what happened to Jeb Bush, who everybody up here loved,” the executive said of Wall Street donors who flocked to the former Florida governor’s 2016 campaign. “He got crushed and crushed quickly, and that would just happen again.”

These people love Tim Scott. With the caveat that it is unsourced quotes, highlighted are perhaps some reasons not to

 

[KG1]

I haven't seen any indication from the way DeSantis has governed that he is influenced to any great degree by CfG or COC establishment Republicans.

He has no qualms about engaging with big business and the leftist education administration. He has championed for parental rights to have a say over their children's education against being indoctrinated by a perverted agenda.

He has the same border, economic, energy, constitutional judicial philosophy policies as Trump and has shown an outspoken distain for the MSM, Big Tech censorship and the corruption of government agencies as well. He is an ally for 2nd amendment rights. I could go on but you get the picture.

 

[manifest destiny]

D'tis looks like W. politically, to me. Perhaps time will prove me wrong. As this is a Trump '24 thread, I'd like to point out that Trump might want to figure out how he's going to handle RFKjr. Sure, the D's will likely burn him at the stake in their primaries. But if not, Trump might have his hands full. RFKjr has a unique position. He could be a real problem if those clamoring for a Trump alternate choose to vote for RFKjr.

 

[KG1]

D'tis looks like W. politically, to me. Perhaps time will prove me wrong. As this is a Trump '24 thread, I'd like to point out that Trump might want to figure out how he's going to handle RFKjr. Sure, the D's will likely burn him at the stake in their primaries. But if not, Trump might have his hands full. RFKjr has a unique position. He could be a real problem if those clamoring for a Trump alternate choose to vote for RFKjr.

In what way is D'tis demonstrably like W more so than he is like Trump? W was a go along to get along with the MSM and the other side of the aisle. An easily manipulated establishment type.