The Race For 2024

[Derec]

Ron has his own trouble catching fire despite his popularity in Florida.
We will see. Even 2024 is a long way off in political terms. 2028 might as well be another century.

My larger point was about Gavin's double strategy. Overtly run to position himself for 2028, but at the same time keep an eye on 2024 because that may be thrown wide open at a moment's notice.

 

[TomC]

My larger point was about Gavin's double strategy. Overtly run to position himself for 2028, but at the same time keep an eye on 2024 because that may be thrown wide open at a moment's notice.

Is that different from Desantis' plans?

He's still behind Trump, by a lot, amongst Republicans, in their home state of Florida.
But he keeps on keeping on.
Tom

 

[Derec]

Is that different from Desantis' plans?

The difference is that RdS is openly running in 2024. GCN is not.
But there are similarities for sure.

 

[Copernicus]

Is that different from Desantis' plans?

The difference is that RdS is openly running in 2024. GCN is not.
But there are similarities for sure.

Right now, Trump has a lock on the nomination, but I think DeSantis and others are banking on him not being the nominee. So they are really competing against each other, not Trump, whom they've already started to criticize more openly. Trump is only slightly younger than Biden, and his legal entanglements are daunting.

Newsom has the same incentive to stay in the race. Biden is old, so his health could give out suddenly. Who would step in to replace him?

 

[TomC]

Is that different from Desantis' plans?

The difference is that RdS is openly running in 2024. GCN is not.
But there are similarities for sure.

One of the difficult things about the modern, internet, political landscape is the difficulty in distinguishing between people who are running for office, those who are setting themselves up for a future run, and those who are grifting.

RFKj has about as much chance of winning the 2024 presidential popular election as Nikki Haley. But they're both "candidates" technically.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

... Still I do remember ivermectin, I remember "Yay, ivermectin doesn't work, that means we can jeer at Trump when he said it showed initial promise. Even though this means more suffering my side benefits."

Trump-loving nonsense.

No, there were people genuinely happy that a potential treatment didn't work, because that was a political loss for a political opponent. That it also means suffering among the little people meant nothing. Shall I find the posts in this forum of people happy that it didn't work?

Trump conned desperate, naive or stupid people to use an untested treatment. Any suffering they endured is due to him and no one else.

Everything is a potential treatment. I seriously doubt anyone who pointed out that "Don the Con" had once again fleeced some of the public was happy about any suffering that may have been endured. Of course, any true libertarian would understand that freely made choices have consequences that should be borne by those who make them.

Yet here you are deflecting focus from the actual cause of a such suffering away from Trump, just like a devout MAGA acolyte.

 

[lostone]

28% who said they would.

35% who said they would.

These numbers are terrifying. Over a quarter of Republicans are saying that they would support their candidate if he was in jail having been convicted of crimes; And over a third say they would support him if convicted but not jailed.

These are not trivial numbers of people. Sure, they're a minority; But they're a significant minority, even when you consider that Republicans are a slight minority of Americans.

They're more than enough to totally fuck up any country, given their explicit disregard for its legal institutions.

How can a country survive when so many of its citizens (and an even larger proportion of its voters) are in contempt of the law?

My son believes that there is a critical fraction of the population that can be in contempt of the law before a nation will collapse and that we have crossed that threshold. I think you are correct. We are screwed. English history teaches us that civil wars are dark and bloody.

The civil war will not take a traditional form, and is already underway. (To see how it’s going, google “USA gun deaths”, and “USA life expectancy” - and check the historical data)

It is guaranteed to be a protracted conflict, even if sheer voter numbers can keep the zombies from overrunning the compound for the moment, or even indefinitely. Rooting out the stupid and the malicious might never happen at all.

Civil wars are always nasty business. England had many of them over who would be king, and deposed several kings, up until the War of the Roses. Some might say it did not end until the battle of Culloden in 1745. The Scots still complain about how brutal the English were in 1745. Let's hope the US does not replay that game.

 

[pood]

... Still I do remember ivermectin, I remember "Yay, ivermectin doesn't work, that means we can jeer at Trump when he said it showed initial promise. Even though this means more suffering my side benefits."

Trump-loving nonsense.

No, there were people genuinely happy that a potential treatment didn't work, because that was a political loss for a political opponent. That it also means suffering among the little people meant nothing.

This somehow sounds like projection to me.

Shall I find the posts in this forum of people happy that it didn't work?

Have you done that yet? I haven’t read this whole thread. I’d be interested in seeing those posts.

Now, of course, in Libertarian La-La Land, it’s all good — ivermectin, horse piss, astrology, prayers to Jesus, eating arsenic, because in Libertarian La-La Land, who the fuck needs an FDA, right? It’s all cavaet emptor, ain’t it?

 

[bilby]

England had many of them over who would be king, and deposed several kings, up until the War of the Roses.

Oddly, this summary misses by almost two hundred years the one civil war in England that historians typically call a civil war, and the only such war that ended with the execution of a king without the immediate accession of a new monarch.

Some might say it did not end until the battle of Culloden in 1745. The Scots still complain about how brutal the English were in 1745. Let's hope the US does not replay that game.

The wars between Scotland and England weren't really civil wars, they were regular wars between neighbouring countries, albeit with a strong "fifth column" in many cases - in some cases, so many Scotsmen (and so few Englishmen) fought on the "English" side that they could reasonably be described as Scottish civil wars, but certainly not as English ones.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

... Still I do remember ivermectin, I remember "Yay, ivermectin doesn't work, that means we can jeer at Trump when he said it showed initial promise. Even though this means more suffering my side benefits."

Trump-loving nonsense.

No, there were people genuinely happy that a potential treatment didn't work, because that was a political loss for a political opponent. That it also means suffering among the little people meant nothing. Shall I find the posts in this forum of people happy that it didn't work?

Trump conned desperate, naive or stupid people to use an untested treatment. Any suffering they endured is due to him and no one else.

Irrelevant opinion.

Everything is a potential treatment.

Technically true yet misleading.

I seriously doubt anyone who pointed out that "Don the Con" had once again fleeced some of the public was happy about any suffering that may have been endured.

Your opinion is counter-factual.

Of course, any true libertarian would understand that freely made choices have consequences that should be borne by those who make them.

Irrelevant.

Yet here you are deflecting focus from the actual cause of a such suffering away from Trump, just like a devout MAGA acolyte.

Your statement is counter-factual.

 

[laughing dog]

... Still I do remember ivermectin, I remember "Yay, ivermectin doesn't work, that means we can jeer at Trump when he said it showed initial promise. Even though this means more suffering my side benefits."

Trump-loving nonsense.

No, there were people genuinely happy that a potential treatment didn't work, because that was a political loss for a political opponent. That it also means suffering among the little people meant nothing. Shall I find the posts in this forum of people happy that it didn't work?

Trump conned desperate, naive or stupid people to use an untested treatment. Any suffering they endured is due to him and no one else.

Irrelevant opinion.

No, it is called reasoning. You should try it.

Everything is a potential treatment.

Technically true yet misleading.

No more misleading than your post.

I seriously doubt anyone who pointed out that "Don the Con" had once again fleeced some of the public was happy about any suffering that may have been endured.

Your opinion is counter-factual.

The irony of that coming from a libertarian is overwhelming. Provide the evidence to support your claim.

Of course, any true libertarian would understand that freely made choices have consequences that should be borne by those who make them.

Irrelevant.

No more irrelevant than your previous post.

Yet here you are deflecting focus from the actual cause of a such suffering away from Trump, just like a devout MAGA acolyte.

Your statement is counter-factual.

Provide the evidence to support your hand-waved claim.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How about you support your claims instead of asking me to support your claims.

 

[laughing dog]

How about you support your claims instead of asking me to support your claims.

I didn't ask you to support my claims. I asked you to support your claims. As your response confirms, there is little chance you will actually support your claims of fact with evidence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since you assert without evidence, I dismiss likewise.

 

[Elixir]

This somehow sounds like projection to me.

Sounds to me like the libberpublican version of “thousands of Moozlums CELEBRATING across the river in New Jersey”.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This somehow sounds like projection to me.

Sounds to me like the libberpublican version of “thousands of Moozlums CELEBRATING across the river in New Jersey”.

You still haven't explained why you wrote that DeSantis is obsessed with gas ovens (not stoves) and why that elicited a "Yikes" from you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

... Still I do remember ivermectin, I remember "Yay, ivermectin doesn't work, that means we can jeer at Trump when he said it showed initial promise. Even though this means more suffering my side benefits."

Trump-loving nonsense.

No, there were people genuinely happy that a potential treatment didn't work, because that was a political loss for a political opponent. That it also means suffering among the little people meant nothing.

This somehow sounds like projection to me.

Shall I find the posts in this forum of people happy that it didn't work?

Have you done that yet? I haven’t read this whole thread. I’d be interested in seeing those posts.

Now, of course, in Libertarian La-La Land, it’s all good — ivermectin, horse piss, astrology, prayers to Jesus, eating arsenic, because in Libertarian La-La Land, who the fuck needs an FDA, right? It’s all cavaet emptor, ain’t it?

You need a government to tell you not to eat arsenic? That explains your animosity to a political system in which the government leaves you alone.

 

[Copernicus]

You need a government to tell you not to eat arsenic? That explains your animosity to a political system in which the government leaves you alone

In a large population, there will be some who need to be told. For example, Donald Trump needed to be told that injecting bleach would not actually cure COVID, even if it could kill the virus. And then there is the danger inherent in not labelling containers containing poison with poison labels. It is obvious to most people that one needs a government to regulate the safety of products, but apparently libertarians need to be told.

 

[lpetrich]

If RFK Jr. Wants To Be President, He’s Running In The Wrong Primary | FiveThirtyEight

A certain presidential candidate has been very popular lately. He appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast. House Republicans invited him to testify before Congress on censorship. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, has suggested that if he becomes president, he might nominate him to lead the Food and Drug Administration or Centers for Disease Control. GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he’d consider him to be his running mate.

The only problem? This candidate is running in the Democratic primary.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a contradiction ever since he announced his presidential campaign back in April. Though he’s part of the most famous family in Democratic politics and holds some liberal views — like supporting abortion rights — he is best known for his embrace of conspiracy theories most popular on the right, including the idea that vaccines are unsafe. That has made him a celebrity among conservative thought leaders and persona non grata within the Democratic Party. The head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even called him “unfit for public office.”

Those topsy-turvy opinions of Kennedy extend to voters — he’s quite popular among Republicans, but Democrats are highly ambivalent about him.

 

[lpetrich]

RealClearPolitics - Election 2024 - 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination

National : President: Republican primary : 2024 Polls | FiveThirtyEight

Donald Trump's poll numbers are holding steady while Ron DeSantis is still declining. The others continue to score less than 10%.