So there is no need for leaders? There is no need for understanding the structure of the issue? Just send in a leaderless team and drain the swamp…If you think that one man can do that, you're even more clueless than I thought.
How did that swamp draining thingy go?
Army Corps of Engineers? They have a Biden-worthy record of success at that sort of thingSo there is no need for leaders? There is no need for understanding the structure of the issue? Just send in a leaderless team and drain the swamp…
Draining the swamp is impossible. That's what you don't seem to understand. It's a child-like view of how things really work in DC. You actually think that one man can come in and fundamentally change things.So there is no need for leaders? There is no need for understanding the structure of the issue? Just send in a leaderless team and drain the swamp…
Viktor Orban?You actually think that one man can come in and fundamentally change things.
You do you, I've got no problem with it.I've posted this before, but quite some time ago. For you and the guy whose avatar is a little red Honda Fit[?] in motion, when I return to INGO after a break, I pick up reading a thread from where I left off, responding to posts as I encounter them. This will result sometimes in responding to a post that has been in some way superseded but it works for me to keep the posts in a thread in proper sequence in my mind
Deal or Ignore, not planning to change
Maybe you haven't kept up. I dunno. So I'll assume that's the case since you're attributing a position that no one in this discussion has held."The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn't care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions"
To some on here, it matters not if Trump candidates were to win 99 of 100. For the single loss proves unequivocally that Trump is a loser. And for the 99 wins, well, they were to win anyway sayeth the omniscient. It's blind orange rage for which there is no cure.
I thought it started with TB mocking Trumpers about "winning". But it may have started earlier than that.This quoting back and forth thread started with my post on Georgia.
Trump was butt hurt over Georgia 2020 and set out for revenge... on REPPUBLICANS! His ONLY win in Georgia was Herschel Walker from nowhere to win the primary.
Other than two Democratic Senators... the state is RED... all state posts and both houses of the legislature. But TWO Dem Senators thanks to Trump's petty tantrums.
Trump's "wins" gave and continue to give the gavel to Schumer.
I call that LOSING.
I don't know how this concept could be made any more clear.I see things simply.
There are red and blue states and districts that barring a catastrophically crappy candidate (like Moore in Alabama or Walker in Georgia), the dominate party just cannot loose without royally ******** the pooch.
The purple states and districts (toss-ups) determine who controls the Senate or the House (or the White House). Win these and you win control. Lose these and you get Pelosi/Schumer/Biden.
And, how you fare in holding the "pink" states/districts and flipping the light blue states/districts means whether you have "cushion" in the House/Senate or are at the whims of a Manchin or McCain or Romney.
In the purple, light blue and pink contests, Trump LOST bigly.
Those are the contests that mean WINNING or LOSING.
Well not generically. But specifically in this case, yeah. Trump screwed the pooch. It is the character flaws that everyone else can see but you guys that caused him to screw the pooch.Ok, got it. Orange man bad. Who is the general that can clean this up and put the country on the right track? The true conservative that can win over the moderates while not forsaking the conservative values? Who is it?
Man, that's a great take. I would make a small change and swap the word capitalism for corporations. But otherwise a fair and accurate assessment.The corporations own the government. Somebody on this forum has said that capitalism has defeated conservatism. That's probably close to being true. Not that conservatism needed any help.
********. You guys are hiding behind the statistic that matters. Trump pick some lousy candidates when it mattered. No one moved any goal posts. The original complaint that losing the Senate is not "winning".So let's sum this up
When presented with statistics that Trump's record in endorsement outcomes is actually quite good, you seek to move the goalposts to refer to 'competitive' elections, without an information for how that designation was assigned or by who
That's all you got? Better record. You can't address the complaint. Keep hiding man. It's your only hope.When asked to name a politician whose endorsement record was BETTER than the record of the politician you so desperately seek to paint in a derogatory light, you have no answer but some vague dodge and weave about other politicians not getting involved in primaries. My post on DeSantis' endorsements gives the lie to that
It also seems that you think we should '... trust the primaries to generally produce the best candidate ...' as if Trump alone was seeking to influence the primaries but ignoring all the others active in those areas like McConnel and his superPAC the NRSC or Competent Man's leash-holder the Club for Growth
You might want to pull that axe off the grinder while there is still some metal left in the head
Well. A good leader whose character flaws don't cause him to make the worst decisions when it matters. You guys either deny the flaws or say they don't matter. Well, they did here. If Trump were not such a narcissist, and maybe a better strategist, I think he'd have picked candidates that could win. It was always silly to think celebrity matters. A practically brain-dead guy beat the celebrity.So there is no need for leaders? There is no need for understanding the structure of the issue? Just send in a leaderless team and drain the swamp…
Red = Some here have said exactly that. Maybe not you, but some.Maybe you haven't kept up. I dunno. So I'll assume that's the case since you're attributing a position that no one in this discussion has held.
This whole back and forth about Trump's endorsements was because many Ardent Trump fans bragged in the primaries when Trump endorsed candidates won. You'd (rhetorically 'you') link an article or whatever and comment, 'winning'. Okay.
Well. Fair enough. Trump endorsees did well in the primaries. Even in districts with a lot of moderates. And it's noteworthy, with the help of Democrats, because it was their strategy to help candidates that could be tied to Trump win in primaries so they could make the election about Trump.
So all the success in the primaries for Trumpers, now let's see what good it did after the general election is done. It's fair to point out that we should expect Trump candidates to win the easy races. There's no controversy there. It's expected. And then when that point is raised, *some* Trump fans had to parse the word "expected". I guess because that's not an easy enough concept to grasp on its own.
The whole point has been that fat lot of good Trump-endorsed candidates have accomplished towards the goal of taking over congress. I don't see Trumpers linking to the results and saying "winning". I see them linking to stories about cheating because candidates they were so sure would must have lost because of cheating. Couldn't possibly be that a Trump-picked candidate could lose on their own because at the minimum. They're **** candidates.
And that's always been the main point in this discussion raised by the people who have an ability to see faults that you guys can't see, because your devotion to a mere mortal blinds you to reality. We lost a seat in the Senate because Trump picked some losers. That's not "winning". And I'm not saying that Trump's endorsement caused them to lose. I certainly can't find any evidence to support that he helped them make it close. The problem is that the guy you think is "winning" picked some losers.
So there isn't any need to go dozens of pages to figure that out. It is what it is. Just admit it and move on. Trump picked some losers and that cost us the Senate, and possibly a bigger majority in the House. Those were contested races. But winnable. Because of the economy and people being fed up with woke ********.
What? Who is saying there's no such thing as TDS. But, you guys throw around "TDS" like Wokies throw around "racist". You dismiss legitimate complaints by throwing out useless words. If everyone who disagrees with you about Trump has TDS, then the term is completely worthless. Maybe throw it at people who have TDS. And how is your post not an ad hominem?Some here,
"________ Donny! I'm tired of his petty ___________ and LOSING!"
"Temper tantrum Donny HAND PICKED LOSERS!"
But there's no such thing as TDS. Whew! Um, ok.
Some only offer righteous anger with personal, ad hominem attacks all while denying factual outcomes. There's no room for any discussion here. There is simply too much rage and ignorance by some.
Your point presupposes that there was fruit to pick that was not rotten. That there was a candidate that could win.Well. A good leader whose character flaws don't cause him to make the worst decisions when it matters. You guys either deny the flaws or say they don't matter. Well, they did here. If Trump were not such a narcissist, and maybe a better strategist, I think he'd have picked candidates that could win. It was always silly to think celebrity matters. A practically brain-dead guy beat the celebrity.
The same person using all caps with exclamation points to declare Donny a loser. If loss of emotional control while discussing Trump's winning record of endorsements leads to name calling (Donny moniker) and screaming (in text context) isn't TDS, I can't imagine what is.Who is saying there's no such thing as TDS
Well stated.Your point presupposes that there was fruit to pick that was not rotten. That there was a candidate that could win.
Trump doesn't get credit for the losses. I think blame is more appropriate because he picked losers in important races. And he may have picked losers in some of the uncontested races too, but which facts would be obscured by the R+20 districts they're in. It would only be brought to our attention if they lost.Red = Some here have said exactly that. Maybe not you, but some.
My point is simpler. If Trump gets the credit for the losses, he must get credit for the wins. It is flatly disingenuous to give blame one-way, and withhold credit the other-way. Ballotpedia places his W-L record (so to speak) at 83% in the general election. That, 83%, cannot be called losing. One can hate the particular losses. One cannot, mathematically, declare 83% a losing record.