Politically homeless

[PoliSciPulse]

Part 1 of 2 ...
I don't know what you mean by Ds not getting their message out. I saw the proceedings and they sounded good to me. I just don't buy it, sorry. Rs put up baseless defense and voted for Trump essentially. Dems proved their case but they could not get the Cult away from Trump.

What you saw and I saw were two entirely different things. You watched the proceedings. Most Americans, including myself, did not -- for various reasons. Instead, we relied on commentary about the hearing and interviews of both Democrats and Republicans during the hearings. The Democrats may have won the hearings in your eyes (I can't comment because I didn't watch them), but in the media, the Republicans won.

Yes, we mostly agree but fundamental difference is that (I think) you believe these excuses suffice for them to govern if the Trump cult ever dissipates. I don't.

Anyone who exhibits a 100% blinding loyalty to the President and continued to support him despite January 6th (And makes tortured excuses for his behavior -- kinda fits with blinding loyalty) does not deserve to be re-elected. Period. Full stop. Legally, they have every right to run (As long as they didn't cross the Hawley line and salute the crowds on Jan. 6th) and should be defeated.

To me, any propping up of Trump in general is something that cannot be erased. Tim Scott has been very much part of MAGA, promoting Trump all over the place for years.

I think this is where we're getting stuck and going around in circles. So instead of me doubling down once again on this, let me ask you: define "propping up." The Senate and House constitutionally do not "prop" Trump up -- they vote on legislation and issue statements approving or disapproving of his behavior. My current impression is that you wanted Republicans to encourage him to resign. And that would never happen, regardless of whether Jan. 6th or Ukraine happened. Mainly because Trump is too stubborn to leave. So, can you elaborate here?

That he would try and cheat in elections was not a hard guess to make either. Heck, he was publicly asking Russia to help him hack in 2016 election... and then all the things came out about his cooperation with Russia (despite no sufficient-for-court proof of "criminal conspiracy").

The second part of the Mueller Report, which I take it you are referring to, is junk. It's written by somebody else and essentially clears him of the charges in all but two cases. Yes, there were however many points of obstruction mentioned in the report, but as you read it, you'll find all but two of them (the attempted firing of Mueller and the firing of Comey) don't meet the criteria laid out in the preamble to the section. Whoever wrote that section was "propping" Trump up. The first section, IMHO, is what you should base your conclusions on and just disregard the second part, which unfortunately is what all Democrats point to.

In re: Pence: You are right. He is not the strongest Anti-MAGA character and I would not call him the face of the resistance by any means. Chris Christie is a much better face of the Republican resistance (post Jan. 6th). But, he swore an oath to the Constitution above anyone else, and he fulfilled it on Jan. 6th. The actions he took on Jan. 6th is a blueprint for how others should act if (heaven forbid) there is another Jan 6th-type situation.

The thing that I could never figure out about Pence was what he was so scared of. It couldn't have been his career. Maybe he has received death threats or some threat of a lawsuit if he broke with Trump? That's all I can think of. I mean, the man is already on Trump's revenge list because of J6.

 

[Slavister]

... in the media, the Republicans won.

I don't know how you objectively can judge that... Perhaps we watched different media?

I think this is where we're getting stuck and going around in circles. So instead of me doubling down once again on this, let me ask you: define "propping up." The Senate and House constitutionally do not "prop" Trump up -- they vote on legislation and issue statements approving or disapproving of his behavior. My current impression is that you wanted Republicans to encourage him to resign. And that would never happen, regardless of whether Jan. 6th or Ukraine happened. Mainly because Trump is too stubborn to leave. So, can you elaborate here?

By propping up I mean positive statements about Trump, his "achievements", and how great he is as President. Encouraging people to vote for Trump. NOT criticizing Trump for the almost-daily scandals he has been creating or the overall corruptness, nepotism, Muslim ban, etc, etc, etc.

The second part of the Mueller Report, which I take it you are referring to, is junk. It's written by somebody else and essentially clears him of the charges in all but two cases. Yes, there were however many points of obstruction mentioned in the report, but as you read it, you'll find all but two of them (the attempted firing of Mueller and the firing of Comey) don't meet the criteria laid out in the preamble to the section. Whoever wrote that section was "propping" Trump up. The first section, IMHO, is what you should base your conclusions on and just disregard the second part, which unfortunately is what all Democrats point to.

I refer to both part 1, and part 2. I think introduction to both is quite revealing - if you like, you can follow the 2 links to my prior posts on that to see my take on it.

Also here is a link you might useful regarding part 2 - there is more to it than I think you give credit to.

In re: Pence: You are right. He is not the strongest Anti-MAGA character and I would not call him the face of the resistance by any means. Chris Christie is a much better face of the Republican resistance (post Jan. 6th). But, he swore an oath to the Constitution above anyone else, and he fulfilled it on Jan. 6th. The actions he took on Jan. 6th is a blueprint for how others should act if (heaven forbid) there is another Jan 6th-type situation.

The thing that I could never figure out about Pence was what he was so scared of. It couldn't have been his career. Maybe he has received death threats or some threat of a lawsuit if he broke with Trump? That's all I can think of. I mean, the man is already on Trump's revenge list because of J6.

It's a cult... and/or Pence is hoping to still have some clout / make up with Trump to avoid persecution when / if Trump wins.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I don't know how you objectively can judge that... Perhaps we watched different media?

To clarify, the arguments Trump-supporting Senators used to counter the charges were never effectively made -in the media-. And yes, I watched mainly CNN.

By propping up I mean positive statements about Trump, his "achievements", and how great he is as President. Encouraging people to vote for Trump. NOT criticizing Trump for the almost-daily scandals he has been creating or the overall corruptness, nepotism, Muslim ban, etc, etc, etc.

And by that, I would argue that fits my criteria for blind loyalty. We're both kind of on the same page. But within what you say is a mixed bag. I've mentioned three (Scott, Rubio, and Pence) who would qualify as a mixed bag based on those criteria you listed. Supposing one criticizes his policies, but did not vote for either impeachment, etc. - is there a "magic" combination that satisfies you, or do all the boxes that you mentioned have to be checked or else they fit in the "bad" category (Although you do understand my concept that there are "Degrees" of bad).

I refer to both part 1, and part 2. I think introduction to both is quite revealing - if you like, you can follow the 2 links to my prior posts on that to see my take on it.

Also here is a link you might useful regarding part 2 - there is more to it than I think you give credit to.

One of the things I will admit to is that reading comprehension sometimes fails me. I do think in Part I, Trump acted as what I would expect a "high level executive" at any business would do, which is very "top level," instead of getting his own hands dirty, he said "get it done and I don't care how." So the portrayal of him in Part I is right on the money. There's no excuse not to check in on your employees and saying you "don't care how" in a business environment, and things get done behind your back does not absolve you of liability (see Wells Fargo's dummy account/identity theft case for a good example of what I mean).

Part II - if you interpret it in a legal vacuum, it seems to at least imply what I'm saying. This is how I remember it. I read the entire Report, but I'm fully aware I am prone to misinterpreting things (especially since I read it on a computer screen and couldn't highlight on paper!)

t's a cult... and/or Pence is hoping to still have some clout / make up with Trump to avoid persecution when / if Trump wins.

In my opinion, on J6, he had his membership permanently canceled. I wonder if he got the memo?

 

[Slavister]

To clarify, the arguments Trump-supporting Senators used to counter the charges were never effectively made -in the media-. And yes, I watched mainly CNN.

And by that, I would argue that fits my criteria for blind loyalty. We're both kind of on the same page. But within what you say is a mixed bag. I've mentioned three (Scott, Rubio, and Pence) who would qualify as a mixed bag based on those criteria you listed. Supposing one criticizes his policies, but did not vote for either impeachment, etc. - is there a "magic" combination that satisfies you, or do all the boxes that you mentioned have to be checked or else they fit in the "bad" category (Although you do understand my concept that there are "Degrees" of bad).

Their public statements (all 3 examples that you mention) have often been to sing praise to Trump, clearly show their support for him, normalize him, etc. Occasional slight criticism is not going to erase their overall aura of support. All of them had made it clear many times they would prefer Trump again. I don't see much of a mixed back for them.

One of the things I will admit to is that reading comprehension sometimes fails me. I do think in Part I, Trump acted as what I would expect a "high level executive" at any business would do, which is very "top level," instead of getting his own hands dirty, he said "get it done and I don't care how." So the portrayal of him in Part I is right on the money. There's no excuse not to check in on your employees and saying you "don't care how" in a business environment, and things get done behind your back does not absolve you of liability (see Wells Fargo's dummy account/identity theft case for a good example of what I mean).

Part II - if you interpret it in a legal vacuum, it seems to at least imply what I'm saying. This is how I remember it. I read the entire Report, but I'm fully aware I am prone to misinterpreting things (especially since I read it on a computer screen and couldn't highlight on paper!)

I recommend reading those links I gave you, if you are interested more on it...

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Their public statements (all 3 examples that you mention) have often been to sing praise to Trump, clearly show their support for him, normalize him, etc. Occasional slight criticism is not going to erase their overall aura of support. All of them had made it clear many times they would prefer Trump again. I don't see much of a mixed back for them.

So it's a sum total, and even though their overall "total" would differ, the sum would be too high? Fair enough

I recommend reading those links I gave you, if you are interested more on it...

Yes. When I get to reading the Mueller Report (Again in book form), I will definitely read those

 

[slick]

Interestingly, Rubio is a name which has come up a couple times in recent months as someone Trump has on his list of VP possibilities. Just today, as I was perusing news, I ran into that again in this NBC piece about Rubio and VP. Trump and Rubio live in the same state but this article spells out the likely answer to that, should Rubio be chosen.

MSN

In 2016 I saw no use for Rubio but he has aged well IMO! When I read recently he was being considered as VP it surprised me
but he could be the right choice.

Trump will be smart to pick 1) a women 2) a black or 3) a Latino.

At predictit:
Scott leads with Noem a strong second - Rubio is not even in the top 5 as of yet.
ALL would be big assets to the ticket. My own 4th choice would be Tulsi Gabbard.
She was the one who helped destroy Kamala Harris inthe democrat debates &
it would be a blast to see her crush Harris again.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Or maybe politically schizophrenic?

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative?

I feel un-represented in our hyperpartisan world.

Anyone else feel this way?

Pro-choice, but I do not believe that an embryo or fetus are “part of a woman’s body”. It’s pretty clearly a living organism inside of her body that she has the right to remove. Probably sentient when the neural tube is formed.

Death penalty: no strong feelings, not necessarily opposed but do worry about wrongful convictions

Immigration: I believe that many asylum seekers are likely to be economic migrants taking advantage of the system. Might do the same if I were in their shoes. Otherwise I would favor more traditional legal routes of entry.

Healthcare: socialized healthcare sounds ok, but I suspect our government would screw it up and be very wasteful resulting in higher taxation than necessary. Privatization has failed and insurance company greed is out of control.

Military: I favor a strong military but also believe there is probably a bunch of wasteful government spending.

2nd amendment: I’m very pro-2A. Kind of feel like if you can’t be trusted to carry a firearm around all the time, maybe you shouldn’t be free to walk among peaceful people.

Systemic racism: it’s real, and I wish we would focus resources to fix that first in the us vs sending money around the world or funding economic migrants. It’s pretty clear that the zip code you are born into plays as important or more important of a role than just about anything else.

Religion: practice what you want, but I’m an apathetic agnostic at best and move toward atheism daily.

Name another partisan topic…curious where I fall.

I feel like I fail all progressive and conservative litmus tests and all votes hurt my personal interests.

What issues do you differ from in your party?

There are too many people on the planet: Maybe Thanos for 2024 ?

If a person doesn't feel that way then there is something wrong with them.
I was a Democrat initially, in 2001 I switched parties after feeling the party no longer represented me.
Today - neither does the Republican party, but I have no where else to switch to. So like most, it isn't voting for who you support - is voting for which is the lesser of two evils.
FFS - look at the two people running for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How did we get this screwed up?????

 

[Diving Mullah]

Or maybe politically schizophrenic?

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative?

I feel un-represented in our hyperpartisan world.

Anyone else feel this way?

Pro-choice, but I do not believe that an embryo or fetus are “part of a woman’s body”. It’s pretty clearly a living organism inside of her body that she has the right to remove. Probably sentient when the neural tube is formed.

Death penalty: no strong feelings, not necessarily opposed but do worry about wrongful convictions

Immigration: I believe that many asylum seekers are likely to be economic migrants taking advantage of the system. Might do the same if I were in their shoes. Otherwise I would favor more traditional legal routes of entry.

Healthcare: socialized healthcare sounds ok, but I suspect our government would screw it up and be very wasteful resulting in higher taxation than necessary. Privatization has failed and insurance company greed is out of control.

Military: I favor a strong military but also believe there is probably a bunch of wasteful government spending.

2nd amendment: I’m very pro-2A. Kind of feel like if you can’t be trusted to carry a firearm around all the time, maybe you shouldn’t be free to walk among peaceful people.

Systemic racism: it’s real, and I wish we would focus resources to fix that first in the us vs sending money around the world or funding economic migrants. It’s pretty clear that the zip code you are born into plays as important or more important of a role than just about anything else.

Religion: practice what you want, but I’m an apathetic agnostic at best and move toward atheism daily.

Name another partisan topic…curious where I fall.

I feel like I fail all progressive and conservative litmus tests and all votes hurt my personal interests.

What issues do you differ from in your party?

There are too many people on the planet: Maybe Thanos for 2024 ?

You are not Homeless

It’s safe to say that over 60% of Americans are in a similar situation However, many people have one or two non-negotiable issues that significantly influence their voting decisions. For instance, consider a scenario where a voter agrees with 80% of Candidate A’s policies and only 20% of Candidate B’s policies. However, if Candidate B supports a particular issue that is crucial to the voter, they might choose to vote for Candidate B. This decision may seem irrational when considering the overall agreement with each candidate’s policies, but it’s a common occurrence. This phenomenon is one of the reasons we end up with our current Congress and government.


Diving Mullah

 

[PoliSciPulse]

In 2016 I saw no use for Rubio but he has aged well IMO! When I read recently he was being considered as VP it surprised me
but he could be the right choice.

Trump will be smart to pick 1) a women 2) a black or 3) a Latino.

At predictit:
Scott leads with Noem a strong second - Rubio is not even in the top 5 as of yet.
ALL would be big assets to the ticket. My own 4th choice would be Tulsi Gabbard.
She was the one who helped destroy Kamala Harris inthe democrat debates &
it would be a blast to see her crush Harris again.

Noem complements Trump's more erratic views, but I'm not sure if it's the best choice if you want someone more moderate and not as radical.
If there's anything that Gabbard and Buttiegieg taught us, it's don't pick a fight with a military member on the debate stage when you're not prepared -- they will own you.

 

[Opossum]

Before 2015, you'd indeed be in-between the 2 parties.

Nowadays, more important question might be whether you prefer a dictator or a democracy in this country. (side note: this also implies our support for dictators or democracies around the world)

Another one you skipped is whether you believe scientists regarding global warming or not.

Yup...and the display of authoritarian by the left, and their propensity to try and tear down all of our institutions, combined with a seething hate for our country, is a bad combination.

 

[poweRob]

To be, or not to be...America First.

 

[Mycroft]

View attachment 67499994

Stop living in the past.

Modern America First has no connection to that.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

View attachment 67499994

HEre's the thing: Trump doesn't care enough to research it. Whether he happened to come across it on a coin or whether he happened to hear some white supremacist say it, everything from his campaign is borrowed from somewhere. There isn't a really unique idea in his policies, either -- unless you want to count his approach to North Korea (I'm pretty somebody who knows their Presidents better will gainsay me ). Even his immigration plans were copied from a document that Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wrote, and if we take his divisive rhetoric, we go back to Hitler. I'm sure there are others we can go back even further from Hitler on, or more recent from -- point is, it's not original.

In fact, I don't think there is one really original thought he has -- even when he ad libs, he's playing from Hitler's (And, more recently, Reagan's) playbook: if you say a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. I honestly don't think the man cares as long as it gives him the votes he needs to win. And if thought he could win as a Democrat and not a Republican, he would switch parties in a heatbeat.

That's not an excuse for him -- if anything, it's a damning indictment of his ignorance. The one thing I will give him though is that he sure as hell picked the correct demographic to energize in 2016 to beat Hillary -- and even that could have been at someone else's advice.

 

[gbg3]

In 2016 I saw no use for Rubio but he has aged well IMO! When I read recently he was being considered as VP it surprised me
but he could be the right choice.

Trump will be smart to pick 1) a women 2) a black or 3) a Latino.

At predictit:
Scott leads with Noem a strong second - Rubio is not even in the top 5 as of yet.
ALL would be big assets to the ticket. My own 4th choice would be Tulsi Gabbard.
She was the one who helped destroy Kamala Harris inthe democrat debates &
it would be a blast to see her crush Harris again.

The idea of Rubio is really growing on me. I was also surprised when I read he was under consideration recently but, as I think about it, it's really growing on me. I agree, he could be the right choice.

Today, he was on - I think it was Cavuto's show. He was asked about it. He said he doesn't know how that narrative or rumor started but he hasn't been approached about it by anyone. But he added that he thinks anyone asked to be considered VP would likely consider it an honor. I think that made it very clear that he'd love to be considered.

I like the Tulsi idea too!

 

[Michael Cole]

The idea of Rubio is really growing on me. I was also surprised when I read he was under consideration recently but, as I think about it, it's really growing on me. I agree, he could be the right choice.

Today, he was on - I think it was Cavuto's show. He was asked about it. He said he doesn't know how that narrative or rumor started but he hasn't been approached about it by anyone. But he added that he thinks anyone asked to be considered VP would likely consider it an honor. I think that made it very clear that he'd love to be considered.

I like the Tulsi idea too!

A ticket from the same state presents constitutional issues. An elector from that state cannot vote for both candidates. The votes would go to Trump but not to Rubio. It would be possible for the Democratic vice-presidential candidate to receive more votes than Rubio.

MSN

 

[gbg3]

A ticket from the same state presents constitutional issues. An elector from that state cannot vote for both candidates. The votes would go to Trump but not to Rubio. It would be possible for the Democratic vice-presidential candidate to receive more votes than Rubio.

MSN

That is addressed in the link in comment 97. Here is that part -

"There's a scenario being discussed in Florida political circles in which Rubio could resign his Senate seat to move to another state and join the ticket. That would give a big plum to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump's vanquished rival from this year's primary, in the form of a Senate appointment to hand out."

 

[Michael Cole]

That is addressed in the link in comment 97. Here is that part -

"There's a scenario being discussed in Florida political circles in which Rubio could resign his Senate seat to move to another state and join the ticket. That would give a big plum to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump's vanquished rival from this year's primary, in the form of a Senate appointment to hand out."

Of course, either one could move. Rubio doesn't have to. He would just lose Florida's electoral votes.

 

[poweRob]

Stop living in the past.

Modern America First has no connection to that.

Funny how the klan is voting for the America First people still. But it's all different now you say?

 

[Mycroft]

Funny how the klan is voting for the America First people still. But it's all different now you say?

The "klan" is irrelevant nowadays. Nobody pays attention to the "klan".

(except those like you who want to push a lie)

 

[poweRob]

The "klan" is irrelevant nowadays. Nobody pays attention to the "klan".

(except those like you who want to push a lie)

The Klan is still around but probably not as prominent as the nazi wing of the GOP base.

Back to your original post to me saying I should stop living in the past... That's funny coming from someone putting up such an ardent defense of the GOP resurrectimg that old quote.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

When are you going to fully reveal the way we should all live, oh wise one?

As a minarchist I don't want to tell anyone how to live. [unlike the/?your Republicrat authoritardians]

I merely exercise my right to criticize the many many stooooooopid ideas and actions of Republicrats. Don't you think?

[btw, I would wager that, properly funded, Kucinich/Ventura beats either Republicrat $hit puppet next $election]

 

[element94]

As a minarchist I don't want to tell anyone how to live. [unlike the/?your Republicrat authoritardians]

I merely exercise my right to criticize the many many stooooooopid ideas and actions of Republicrats. Don't you think?

[btw, I would wager that, properly funded, Kucinich/Ventura beats either Republicrat $hit puppet next $election]

Minarchist? You better find another country to do that! Good luck to you.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Minarchist? You better find another country to do that! Good luck to you.

I sense you are [unwittingly] a Republicrat maxarchist.

Washington/Jefferson/Thoreau/etc.: “That government is best which governs least”

Modern Republicrats/etc. authoritarians: “That government is best which governs most/everything ”

 

[element94]

I sense you are [unwittingly] a Republicrat maxarchist.

Washington/Jefferson/Thoreau/etc.: “That government is best which governs least”

Modern Republicrats/etc. authoritarians: “That government is best which governs most/everything ”

Not even close. But you are definitely an extremist.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Not even close. But you are definitely an extremist.

LOL. I believe you [probably unconsciously] support MA$$IVE U$ terrorism, secret government, ma$$ive monetary fraud/injustice, etceterot...yet I am the 'extremist'?!?

"...Marjorie Taylor Greene is the Republican alternative to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the former perky high schooler known as Sandy. MTG to AOC. A female Trump. Greene’s background is pretty undistinguished. She seems to have worked as a cross fit trainer, and also written for some conspiracy periodical. Hey, I still do kick boxing workouts at sixty seven, and I’ve written for conspiracy periodicals. Can someone “discover” me? MTG’s antics are very similar to AOC’s. You have a clear choice. Can anyone listen to Kamala Harris for five minutes, and not believe she was “installed?” There are lots of more attractive women, who can cackle as well as her. And millions of White women more qualified to be the nation’s first female vice president.

Who “installed” Lori Lightfoot? Gretchen Whitmer? Online rumors claim that Whitmer was known as “Stretchin’ Gretchen” in high school. I think you can probably figure out what the nickname suggests. How did Mike Lindell go from crackhead to the CEO of the world’s biggest pillow company? Did someone really think Lindsey Graham had the charisma and charm of a successful politician? Adam Schiff? Chucky Schumer? Did Nancy Pelosi really turn Miss Lube Job of 1959 into Speaker of the House? None of these leading political figures are personable in the manner of a Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan, let alone Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. Yet someone backed them with big money, and if we are to believe the voting results, someone keeps returning them to office. Every one of them are “installed...”

From Tupac to Trump - Everything Is Scripted - LewRockwell

The other night, I was watching Jason Whitlock’s excellent “Fearless” podcast, as I regularly do. He was covering the history of rap, or hip-hop (as a mere White male, I cannot determined the difference between them), with a focus on the most popular players in the industry, people like P-Diddy...

www.lewrockwell.com