Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,044
5,702
113
B.C.
Well there's still a lot of division as there's a group who strongly wants him to run again. There's also a lot who won't consider supporting the party if he's going to be running again. Once that's put to bed and the issue is decided then everyone can relax and truly consolidate behind the new nominee. Prior to that potential candidates might make some headway but there will still be those who are either rooting for or worried about trump.
Yes but as long as Trump remains noncommittal he has status and impetus in the Republican Party and keeps the focus on the here and now . That should allow Trump’s agenda to resume if the projected changes in the house and senate comes to pass . It also gives DeSantis more time to implement his agenda and shore up credentials among Rinos and independents prior to Republican Convention .
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,726
1,120
113
Well. . . can you explain it to me, then?
What's to explain, really. As much as we like to paint the 'other side' as a single block entity we both know that's not accurate. People are people, with diverse perceived needs and interests. They elect that level of gov't to address those needs and interests, and a candidate who seems more interested in focusing on something completely other than that is not going to appeal to them. It has nothing to do with being or not being corruptable. I doubt it has much to do with trump. But if you're spending all your time completely focused on things that don't matter to the voters who elect you then they're going to look at alternatives,
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,959
4,289
113
Washington DC
What's to explain, really. As much as we like to paint the 'other side' as a single block entity we both know that's not accurate. People are people, with diverse perceived needs and interests. They elect that level of gov't to address those needs and interests, and a candidate who seems more interested in focusing on something completely other than that is not going to appeal to them. It has nothing to do with being or not being corruptable. I doubt it has much to do with trump. But if you're spending all your time completely focused on things that don't matter to the voters who elect you then they're going to look at alternatives,
Used to be Republicans had a basic ethos that those of demonstrated merit deserved the rewards in money and power, and had an obligation to use them for the common good, but it was OK and expected you'd also use them for your own good.

They at least claimed to believe in balanced budgets, and favored progressive taxation.

They were big on strong defense and being willing to pay for it.

They thought the solution to discrimination was to make it unlawful, provide civil remedies for specific instances of discrimination, and insist that there were no race-based differences and few sex-based differences. They were well aware it would take time to even out the effects of discrimination, but held that giving unearned advantage to members of historically oppressed groups was just another form of discrimination. (Notable that the party's tolerance for racism has been increasing markedly since Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968.)

Their go-to first solution for just about all problems was private and market-based, with government intervention minimal and only when market solutions failed. "A hand up, not a handout."

They were comfortable with Judeo-Christian religion in the public square, and didn't worry too much about minority religions. They thought Judeo-Christian values were an integral part of American culture.

They wanted to limit abortion either to pre-viability or only in cases of rape or incest.

They thought immigration should only be pursuant to the system, and that illegals should be deported posthaste, criminals first.

They fundamentally believed in the capitalist, free-market system, and believed all but the most severely disabled should work to pay their way.

They disliked homosexuality, but generally didn't want to outlaw it or recognize it. They didn't like overt displays of sexuality in public, except for pretty women in skimpy clothes (cheerleaders).

They were moderately authoritarian and favored harsh criminal sentences and broad leeway for the police.

Then they went batshit crazy. . .
 
Last edited:

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
25,044
5,702
113
B.C.
Used to be Republicans had a basic ethos that those of demonstrated merit deserved the rewards in money and power, and had an obligation to use them for the common good, but it was OK and expected you'd also use them for your own good.

They at least claimed to believe in balanced budgets, and favored progressive taxation.

They were big on strong defense and being willing to pay for it.

They thought the solution to discrimination was to make it unlawful, provide civil remedies for specific instances of discrimination, and insist that there were no race-based differences and few sex-based differences. They were well aware it would take time to even out the effects of discrimination, but held that giving unearned advantage to members of historically oppressed groups was just another form of discrimination. (Notable that the party's tolerance for racism has been increasing markedly since Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968.)

Their go-to first solution for just about all problems was private and market-based, with government intervention minimal and only when market solutions failed. "A hand up, not a handout."

They were comfortable with Judeo-Christian religion in the public square, and didn't worry too much about minority religions. They thought Judeo-Christian values were an integral part of American culture.

They wanted to limit abortion either to pre-viability or only in cases of rape or incest.

They thought immigration should only be pursuant to the system, and that illegals should be deported posthaste, criminals first.

They fundamentally believed in the capitalist, free-market system, and believed all but the most severely disabled should work to pay their way.

They disliked homosexuality, but generally didn't want to outlaw it or recognize it. They didn't like overt displays of sexuality in public, except for pretty women in skimpy clothes (cheerleaders).

They were moderately authoritarian and favored harsh criminal sentences and broad leeway for the police.

Then they went batshit crazy. . .
Describes JFK’s democrats to a tee , what happened ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,726
1,120
113
Used to be Republicans had a basic ethos that those of demonstrated merit deserved the rewards in money and power, and had an obligation to use them for the common good, but it was OK and expected you'd also use them for your own good.

They at least claimed to believe in balanced budgets, and favored progressive taxation.

They were big on strong defense and being willing to pay for it.

They thought the solution to discrimination was to make it unlawful, provide civil remedies for specific instances of discrimination, and insist that there were no race-based differences and few sex-based differences. They were well aware it would take time to even out the effects of discrimination, but held that giving unearned advantage to members of historically oppressed groups was just another form of discrimination. (Notable that the party's tolerance for racism has been increasing markedly since Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968.)

Their go-to first solution for just about all problems was private and market-based, with government intervention minimal and only when market solutions failed. "A hand up, not a handout."

They were comfortable with Judeo-Christian religion in the public square, and didn't worry too much about minority religions. They thought Judeo-Christian values were an integral part of American culture.

They wanted to limit abortion either to pre-viability or only in cases of rape or incest.

They thought immigration should only be pursuant to the system, and that illegals should be deported posthaste, criminals first.

They fundamentally believed in the capitalist, free-market system, and believed all but the most severely disabled should work to pay their way.

They disliked homosexuality, but generally didn't want to outlaw it or recognize it. They didn't like overt displays of sexuality in public, except for pretty women in skimpy clothes (cheerleaders).

They were moderately authoritarian and favored harsh criminal sentences and broad leeway for the police.

Then they went batshit crazy. . .
Well as an overall sort of guiding party philosophy i'm sure that's true. However when you get down to the individual level it'll be rare to find many people who believe ALL of that the same AND you start getting into more specific concerns. And mostly people just want to know that their reps are focused on getting them what they want. The party and the supporters are not synonomous nor are they a homogeneous block. There's things i disagree with Pierre Polievre about but i'll still support him because he's going to take action on things i care about more.

She's been all about the Jan 6 'insurrection' and trump (who's not president) and getting praise from the media and even now she's pitching her loss as being because she wouldn't 'bow to the authority of trump' and such, which is plain nonsense considering many others haven't as well. Her people don't care. They want to know about issues that affect them, and she didn't deliver and they went with someone else.

It's always important to listen to the people and not the media.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,959
4,289
113
Washington DC
Well as an overall sort of guiding party philosophy i'm sure that's true. However when you get down to the individual level it'll be rare to find many people who believe ALL of that the same AND you start getting into more specific concerns. And mostly people just want to know that their reps are focused on getting them what they want. The party and the supporters are not synonomous nor are they a homogeneous block. There's things i disagree with Pierre Polievre about but i'll still support him because he's going to take action on things i care about more.

She's been all about the Jan 6 'insurrection' and trump (who's not president) and getting praise from the media and even now she's pitching her loss as being because she wouldn't 'bow to the authority of trump' and such, which is plain nonsense considering many others haven't as well. Her people don't care. They want to know about issues that affect them, and she didn't deliver and they went with someone else.

It's always important to listen to the people and not the media.
How many Wyoming voters have you spoken with?
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,726
1,120
113
Would it matter? If iv'e spoken to 100 or 10,000 or 100,000 would it make what i said any more true or less? Either the information is accurate or it's not. And would i include responses from polls where i didn't speak to them personally but those who did recorded the answers in a scientific manner and I read it?

And are the people of wyoming any different than human beings elsewhere?

You're trying an ad hominem argument, attempting to discredit me instead of the information. Sorry - that's just not a reasonable response. If you have evidence that somehow the half million people in Wyoming are all of the same mind and don't care about local matters then feel free to present it and we can consider it, but based on what i've had access to so far that seems unlikely.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,001
1,725
113
Toronto, ON
Well as an overall sort of guiding party philosophy i'm sure that's true. However when you get down to the individual level it'll be rare to find many people who believe ALL of that the same AND you start getting into more specific concerns. And mostly people just want to know that their reps are focused on getting them what they want. The party and the supporters are not synonomous nor are they a homogeneous block. There's things i disagree with Pierre Polievre about but i'll still support him because he's going to take action on things i care about more.

She's been all about the Jan 6 'insurrection' and trump (who's not president) and getting praise from the media and even now she's pitching her loss as being because she wouldn't 'bow to the authority of trump' and such, which is plain nonsense considering many others haven't as well. Her people don't care. They want to know about issues that affect them, and she didn't deliver and they went with someone else.

It's always important to listen to the people and not the media.
I have seen several Wyomic voters interviewed and they all say the same thing. They like Trump. They want their representative to like Trump too. In 2020 I think I heard that Wyoming had one of the highest turnouts for Trump of any state. Bottom line it is their vote and they cast it.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,959
4,289
113
Washington DC
Would it matter? If iv'e spoken to 100 or 10,000 or 100,000 would it make what i said any more true or less? Either the information is accurate or it's not. And would i include responses from polls where i didn't speak to them personally but those who did recorded the answers in a scientific manner and I read it?

And are the people of wyoming any different than human beings elsewhere?

You're trying an ad hominem argument, attempting to discredit me instead of the information. Sorry - that's just not a reasonable response. If you have evidence that somehow the half million people in Wyoming are all of the same mind and don't care about local matters then feel free to present it and we can consider it, but based on what i've had access to so far that seems unlikely.
No, an ad hominem argument would be "You're an idiot" or "You're a brainwashed right-wing racist."

This is epistemology.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,959
4,289
113
Washington DC
I have seen several Wyomic voters interviewed and they all say the same thing. They like Trump. They want their representative to like Trump too. In 2020 I think I heard that Wyoming had one of the highest turnouts for Trump of any state. Bottom line it is their vote and they cast it.
So. . . it's all about Trump?

Yeah, that's the problem.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,726
1,120
113
No, an ad hominem argument would be "You're an idiot" or "You're a brainwashed right-wing racist."

This is epistemology.
You are incorrect. An ad hominem is not a personal insult (tho it could be). it is the dismissal of an argument based on the person not the information. For example "well he's a democrat so of course he'll say that" would be an example. And despite some opinions to the contrary, calling someone a democrat is not technically an insult. :)

Or "well you've never been to university so.. " or the like. You were attempting to discredit the source, not the argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,726
1,120
113
Every interview of voters I have seen on the Wyoming primary has always been talking about Trump. Either it is or the media wants to make it seem that it is.
I don't doubt that the media does want it to be that way, and in fact it looks like democrat voters came out strong in favour of chaney, However - the problem is that's basically all she's offered. So what else are voters going to talk about? That was her platform - i hate trump. Well - the voters aren't interested in I hate trump, they're interested in Wyoming and what she can do for that state and the country. So the only people who did vote for her were people who also really hate trump as their top issue or near to top.

That has NEVER worked in elections. You can't just run on hatred of the other guy and win you have to present something postive to vote FOR. And you REALLY can't do it when it's not the other guy BUT YOUR OWN GUY.

All she had to do is focus on the positive things she could do for wyoming and america. She didn't have to support trump, she could even still say that she believes he must be held to account but that she's got other priorities that she'll bring to the table to make america and wyoming better.

Instead she ran on why her party sucks and trump is horrid and got clobbered. And that's guaranteed what was going to happen.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,726
1,120
113
I have seen several Wyomic voters interviewed and they all say the same thing. They like Trump. They want their representative to like Trump too. In 2020 I think I heard that Wyoming had one of the highest turnouts for Trump of any state. Bottom line it is their vote and they cast it.
Did they comment on all her other policies and platform?

No?

That's because she didn't have one :) People were not interested in hearing about how she's going to go after trump or how she feels about trump. She made it all about trump, and not about the people and what they want. And she got creamed. Hardly a surprise.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,959
4,289
113
Washington DC
You are incorrect. An ad hominem is not a personal insult (tho it could be). it is the dismissal of an argument based on the person not the information. For example "well he's a democrat so of course he'll say that" would be an example. And despite some opinions to the contrary, calling someone a democrat is not technically an insult. :)

Or "well you've never been to university so.. " or the like. You were attempting to discredit the source, not the argument.
Not at all. Precisely. I was questioning the quality of your information. You claimed that Cheney's constituents wanted to know what she was doing for them. Then you followed that with the advice to "listen to the people and not the media." So I asked how many of "the people" you've listened to.

Apparently it's few or none. Your entire argument is based on the entirely unsupported premise that "mostly people just want to know that their reps are focused on getting them what they want." I thought that perhaps you had heard of some significant portion of the Wyoming population saying this.

Apparently not.
 

Taxslave2

Electoral Member
Aug 13, 2022
639
312
63
First off, it absolutely would not. Lots of Republicans have not supported trump and aren't losing races.

Secondly, how many levels of stupid do you have to be to think "Gee, i just lost a race by 30 points in a solid red state that should have been safe, i should think about running for president".

And thirdly - she has spent all her time on this stupid inquiry and is doing nothing for her state. And the people of her state have sent a loud and clear message that they don't care about that crap and want someone focused on their needs at home. And from what I can see that's why she lost.

Honestly - the GOP needs to just forget about trump and move on. The media and the dems love to keep him in the spotlight because it sells papers and it works up their base. Find the next strong candidate and put him in power and move on.
More importantly it focuses attention away from whatever criminal activities the Democrats are currently working on.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah