Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 9 2022 01:06pm)

Big disagree there. The competition WAS weak. If I may ask: which of the 2016 GOP primary candidates did you consider "strong" and which of them do you think had at least as much of a chance of beating Clinton as Trump had (25-30%)?



They will not nominate the most electable candidate because of his electability - if they end up nominating an electable standard bearer (not Trump...), the electability will be a coincidence of other factors.


Beating Trump head-on in a primary in 2024 is obviously only gonna happen if Trump is weak - and I think he will be! His energy level and sharpness have declined drastically compared with 2016. His ideas and shtick are no longer fresh, they're stale and same old. I don't think that more than ~30% of the GOP primary voters are obsessed with 2020, with litigating the past. Imho, a majority would want to move on, and if Trump continues to obsess over the events from (then) 3-4 years ago, that's a minus point for him. Additionally, I do believe that establishment dislike of Trump and concern over his electability will prompt the non-trumpy factions of the GOP to quickly coalesce behind the strongest non-Trump candidate, even if his tone and policies happen to be quite trumpy (e.g. DeSantis).

Of course my entire reasoning hinges on the assumption that a majority of GOP voters supported Trump because of his policies and fighting spirit, rather than because they were (or still are) cultists. But okay, maybe I'm out of touch and placing too much weight on my own motivations in this regard. Time will tell.

Quote (thundercock @ Aug 9 2022 01:27pm)

I think Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich could have beaten Clinton given her unpopularity. Heck, Santorum might have been able to win given that he was pushing the rust-belt white trash working class nonsense for a solid decade but he's also too pro-life for the country.

Quote (JessiWan @ Aug 9 2022 01:29pm)

Calling people "white trash" is degrading.

Quote (thundercock @ Aug 9 2022 01:32pm)

Good. Maybe if they hear it enough, they'll be motivated to improve. When God gives you a gift, you shouldn't squander it.

Quote (JessiWan @ Aug 9 2022 01:35pm)

By your "logic", I should call black people all kinds of nasty names so that they will improve.

Why can't you simply admit that degrading people like you did is wrong?

Quote (thundercock @ Aug 9 2022 01:39pm)

You should. Africa is a complete shit hole and our inner cities are garbage because the family structure there is completely fucked. I believe that a lot of these children who end up being gang bangers could have used a good beating as children.

Quote (bogie160 @ Aug 9 2022 10:37am)

Hillary Clinton is the more comparable example here. Hillary kept classified information on a private server and had them physically destroyed when discovered. The FBI gave her full decorum, her lawyers were kept involved, and unambiguous lies "I didn't know that "C" meant classified!" were allowed to go unpunished. Whether or not Hillary deserved to be punished or not is unimportant. If we think that offenses by powerful people beneath a certain degree shouldn't be punished, that's ok. There's only a problem if the decision to charge/not charge is being made with political calculations in mind.

Quote (JessiWan @ Aug 9 2022 01:41pm)

Maybe you should start calling them the N-word in the hopes of getting them to improve.

But both you and I know you won't do that. You only degrade white people.