Yesterday, I put up this clip of a monologue on Instagram. The point of the monologue, like my point yesterday here, is that if you are going to hold the other side to moral standards, you must hold your side to moral standards too. Otherwise, you cannot expect the voters to care about your claims to better behavior. “Either we hold our side accountable or we give up claims to moral behavior,” I said. I ended it with “We can’t keep putting moral degenerates in the legislature and then wonder why the nation is in decline.”
I attribute to Trump the failure to build the wall (even though *I personally* know he would have needed the cooperation of others to do so) to him specifically because he (either willfully ignorant, or outright lying) made the claim that he'd accomplish it without, apparently, recognizing this fact. He not only made the claim, it was a significant plank in his platform. He RAN ON IT. Once in office, he did not do much to build the bridges of cooperation within his own party or outside it to get it done. As Harry Truman used to say, 'the buck stops here' as it does with EVERY president.
I agree he had an uphill battle to fight against the 'Russia collusion' stories etc. But again, now that we've all had a good long look at this self-absorbed narcissist who is only concerned with his own interests and ego, I share the belief that the last place this man belongs is in the White House. While I don't condone the illegal and shady methods the Democrats used to try to either keep him out of office or hamstring him once in it, I understand their desperation. Not that their guy is any better, mind you.
As for legal hearings etc, I am in the legal profession and I've already seen and heard enough about his actions and the evidence against him to know that in at least 2 of the 4 cases against him, he's in deep trouble and will likely serve some period of time in prison. Just like with the 'stolen election' nonsense, I actually took the time to read most of the pleadings/complaints filed alleging this across the country and not only did they contain nothing factual in evidence, in some cases the attorneys made basic procedural errors in either writing the documents or in filing them, causing them to be dismissed outright. Errors I'd be embarrased to make and are potentially cause for malpractice accusations. Either that, or they willingly did this, knowing that in a court of LAW they had no case, but in the court of PUBLIC OPINION, they did, with supporters who largely won't bother to read the actual cases. I don't know what his criteria for hiring counsel is but these have got to be some of the dumbest or laziest lawyers on the planet. But maybe they're loyal to him, and that's all that matters to him, I guess.
It may be that 4 more years of Biden is the only cure for Trump. Requiring minimal literacy of voters would take care of the problem, but it won't happen
I've been thinking about what you said yesterday and today. I think that what we're seeing is that nothing is private anymore. The behavior has always been present in amoral or sinning politicians, we just didn't see it. Nothing seems to sink people, anymore, unless you're a person who speaks out. RBrand, EMusk, DTrump, etc. Do you have suggestions for what we do now?
I’m pretty sure even Mr. Erickson would agree that DeSantis was given assurances that Trump would be out of the picture. I think he’s even put it in writing.
By the time DeSantis officially got into the race, everyone was saying “he can’t win”. Just Google “Trump can’t win”. You’ll find all kinds of folks saying “Trump can’t win”. But it was just hope-full thinking from the establishment on both sides. But now, real panic has set in because it certainly looks like he could win - short of them killing him. It’s apparent now that jail probably won’t stop him. So DeSantis is doubling down on “he can’t win” in a very public way.
Ron DeSantis: Donald Trump's chance of being elected if convicted 'as close to zero as you can get' - Washington Times
It really is absurd to think that any of the so-called GOP contenders believe they have a chance unless Trump is taken out by something besides an election. In a normal election, the polls would have already caused their money to disappear. But because they still desperately hope that something will take Trump out, they soldier on. All the Trump hatters from Soros to Erickson are simply holding on to that hope. And sadly they mostly hold the same conviction- anybody (including DeSantis, Christy, Biden, Michelle Obama, the idiot governor of California, Harris, etc.) absolutely anyone but Trump. The ramifications of this fact I think give Trump his best shot at winning.
Mr. Erickson like many, has said he was wrong about Trump- that he actually produced good results as President. But he doesn’t like him - you know - orange hair, mean mouthed, not in his view a Christian, etc. But Americans, if you believe the polls, think it is inherently unfair to allow arguably the most productive President in at least decades to be attacked so unfairly. Even DeSantis says the attacks against Trump are politically motivated. These attacks are a crime. If you’re not fighting against those attacks, you lose standing with millions of voters.
What if Trump’s best chance of retaking the WH is to get thrown in jail and continue running from his cell. That may now be their greatest fear. Here’s a conspiracy theory for you. The entire HATE TRUMP community is conspiring to take him out - by any means possible. If you think that’s a conspiracy theory then you probably still believe masks were/are an effective measure against COVID. You also probably believe that COVID was just Mother Nature rearing its ugly head. But millions differ. If any part of that is you, you’re on the wrong side of history.
Ask Mr. Erickson if he believes DeSantis would have ever run against Trump if he hadn’t been assured that Trump would be taken out. Or for that matter, ask if any of the GOP candidates would still be in the running if they were not at least hopeful that Trump will be taken out. And if you think they care how it’s done, you’re naive at best.
What TRUMP HATERS are doing is way more immoral than anything Trump has ever done.
"But Americans, if you believe the polls, think it is inherently unfair to allow arguably the most productive President in at least decades to be attacked so unfairly." Yes, I would say most agree with that statement but not with "orange hair, mean mouthed, not in his view a Christian, etc." Previous Trump voters on the whole probably could tolerate some of his prior behaviors because he did get somethings done and showed we could stand up but he did far less than he could have and made unforced errors. However, taking Christian morals out of it, his current behaviors are not what most logical people want in our next President who has to face all the problems we now have. He acts like a spoiled kid whose toys were taken away, and has made one bad decision after another. Instead of being a kingmaker he is willing to put us at risk. We do not need another self-serving old man who may or may not even be up for the challenge. Face it a stroke or heart attack has a very real chance, then what? Fiery rhetoric is not a game plan, emotional attachment not a reason to vote when a younger person that could go 8 yrs, hopefully get the under 50 on board for more than 1 election, and doesn't provide the visceral hate that Trump does. He is even backtracking on things he did right. His best quality was as an unknown player but that no longer applies and he has shown how easily he can be manipulated. Add back in his less than moral character which is what we dislike about the current govt, the willingness to lie, cheat, turning on others, etc. it is easy to see why we no longer support him for President. So, no, a larger majority of non-Trump voters are not haters we just see the bigger, longer-range picture, put our country first and hope more people see we have better options and it is time to move to a younger more moral candidate.
Trump will be "taken out" the same way he was last time, via a shellacking at the ballot box to the near vegetable, Joe Biden. He will b*tch and moan and cry stolen election just like he did last time (and for that matter when he lost the Iowa caucus to Cruz). He and Kari Lake can do cosplay as pres and vp from mar a lago for all any one cares. At least he wont be in a position to trample on the constitution like he attempted to the last time he handed the Whitehouse to a geriatric near vegetable dem and in doing so gave us this high inflation, high crime, open border disaster.
Amen, I couldn't say it better. We are hypocrites if we don't call out immoral behavior on our own side (and there's plenty on both sides). I too am done voting for these clowns. I suspect 2024 will be the first election I just stay home since I first became elible to vote. Candidate quality has really deteriorated since the Reagan era. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for people of little character and even lesser morals who just are a different side of the same coin and are there to mostly appeal to their own egos and/or fatten their wallets. I owe no one my vote. Maybe the R's will get sick of losing and figure out they need to put up better candidates.
I only agree with you up to a point. I don't want Trump as a president again for a number of reasons. I will financially support another choice during the primary season. But, if Trump wins the nomination anyway and the choice is between him and Biden, Obama, Harris or Newsom. I am not staying him but supporting the lesser evil. You may feel this is not a Christian response but I don't feel like faced with all undesirable choices, getting behind the least undesirable is not un-Christian. Sitting at home as our culture, values, faith and religious freedom is getting destroyed is just too passive for me.
Trump has just lost some Christian votes with his recent words about abortion. I know it's not enough to make a huge difference, but the numbers continue to creep up.
I do not know of any NEW voters that Trump has picked up. But I do know a LOT of previous supporters that he has lost. I just do not see how he can win the general election, even against the geriatric.
I had this conflict for years with my business partner until we separated because of it. My constant criticism of his position was that we should not be involved in playing the game if we are going to play cricket when the market is playing rugby.
He was a stuck-up New England prude that spent all his time polishing his image as a smart and good person while he constantly failed at meeting his performance expectations.
Hey look at me... I am Mr. Wonderful even though I suck at my job getting things done!
There is something I consider a weird tick in some people that are so damn sensitive to image. I could give a flying eff about anything other than winning the game within the ethical rules of the game. This tendency to slip into moral judgement of what are simply a requirement of ethics, I think, is a flaw in the judge and not a flaw in the judged.
Ethics is the the game requirement, not morality. Ethics are defined, morality is completely subjective.
If you fail to recognize the shifting landscape and adjust accordingly, you will consistently get your hat handed to yourself in defeat.
I have this conflict with some of my board members. We have a business within a very competitive market where all the sales partners are young, high-testosterone professionals. In one annual event done in Las Vegas, groups of these people, male and female, head to a Vegas strip club. The company does not reimburse for those expenses if my sales people attend, but I have no policy to prevent it. I don't encourage them or discourage them from attending.
Our competitors in our market not only attend, but spend a lot of money at those events.
I have some board members that want me to update the policy to disallow any employee, even on their own time, to participate in any activity that includes naked people. Thankfully the majority of the directors vote them down as they see these activities as harmless, normal and necessary for us to maintain friendly relationships with the business referral network.
I agree even though I would never attend.
The entire mainstream media is cool with corrupting democracy in collusion with the Democrat political machine and we are going to wring our hands about a candidate that types mean Tweets and then vote for his opponent in a temper tantrum of hate because we feel that he damages our image as good moral people? In terms of ethics, the Democrats are crap. And then for Republicans to make their response a bar of high morality... well hell no. Talk about tying both hands behind your back!
Wake up people. Look in the mirror and grow some self awareness that your behavior to vote for destruction rather than suffer a hit to your self perception of high and mighty morality is the stuff of personal dysfunction. It is a sign that you are not really whole... not really a self-confident individual that can throw your shoulders back and stand upright in the fight for what is truly right and righteous.
Grab the ring of high ethics, but don't get your underwear in a bunch over your emotional turmoil over morality.
If you are a soldier fighting a war, do you freeze with the immorality of killing the enemy or do you make a decision based on the ethics of your current role for the current situation? If the former you are defeated and likely dead.
Moralist are far from absolute... they are as variable as the wind. What one person sees as moral the person next door might consider cause for severe reprimand. Lauren Boebert is a good example. She was with a date and they were behaving like two young sexual humans. The more prudish are aghast at the behavior. The more rational and reasonable look at it as nothing and nobody else's business.
Why go there? Why allow yourself to be hooked into the game of some giant American Idol competition where the branding of Democrats is positive and the branding of Republicans is negative?
Russel Brand is being destroyed by the Democrat media after being loved by the Democrat media only because he dared to oppose the Democrat machine. I know we will have Republican prudes that jump on that "destroy Russel Brand" bandwagon because that behavior is soooo... unbecoming of a high and mighty conservative moralist.
Basically the Democrats do very well weaponizing Republicans against themselves in this way. The Democrats play with zero morality and zero ethics with a goal to win. The Republicans, in turn, play with a demand for high morality that supersedes any perspective on ethics, and keep getting beat at the polls and cannot understand why.
I wish more of my Republican friends would wake up and play rugby.
You miss one point, sometimes a lack of moral ethics can be detrimental in the end. Say the high achiever who happily embezzled from you or sold company secrets to competition, etc. The person we elect can be too good (Jimmy Carter) but when you have really bad candidates it is usually more than just one slip-up, it is a pattern. When you have strong candidates that have a higher moral standard than others why would you discard them in favor of one who has many failings? Choices do matter and just as crime starts small and then grows people who don't have a moral compass are not the best choice, especially when you DO have better choices out there. Trump may win the primary but not the election. Add in his less than moral character which is what we dislike about the current govt, the willingness to lie, cheat, etc. it is easy to see why we no longer support him for President. As for Lauren Boebert I don't believe in getting in people's bedrooms but when divorce, separation is as easy as it is why cheat, especially when a public figure - poor decision making.
I wish it were this easy...vote for a person with good Christian morals and that person will turn (or at least start to turn) the country around if he/she wins the Presidency. Unfortunately, those of us over 50 years old (of course most close to that age were too young to vote, but still may have heard of the U.S.'s economic decline and overall weakness on the world stage from our parents and grandparents) will remember the vote for a moral man and how it all turned out. That person's name is Jimmy Carter. That's not to say to vote for an immoral person, but in the case of running the country, more aspects need to be considered in addition to morals. I'll gladly trade in a few moral points for other characteristics that will turn the country from the nose-dive it's currently in.
I will vote down ballot Republican, but under NO circumstance will I ever vote for the clown known as Donald Trump. It’s time we rid our party of this grifter and his band of degenerates. It appalls me that we have Trump and Lake(former Democrats) now calling lifelong Republicans RINO’s. Enough is enough. Good riddance!!!
Guys - Its going to ultimately be Biden vs. Trump, no matter how many of us don't want that. The choice is easy. One guy is a krappy Democrat near vegetable with krappy Democrat polices, the other guy tried to illegally end democracy from the whitehouse because he was butt-hurt about losing to the near vegetable in the last election. I will hold my nose and vote for the person that is most likely to preserve democracy (Biden).
In the first place, I still don't believe that Biden will be the Dem's candidate. Almost any other dem candidate, barring perhaps Harris, could beat Trump due to his unlikability and having made so many enemies out of people that should have been his allies.
Still, its depressing to contemplate a Trump - Biden election. Sometimes I think that a parliamentary system might have some advantages although I consider myself to be a constitutional conservative.
Just curious which positions you reject as there are several implicit in my comment: that it will come down to Biden Trump? that Biden is a krappy near vegetable? that Trump lost the last election? that Trump is butt-hurt about that loss? that Trump tried to end democracy? That Trump is riskier to democracy than Biden?
I reject it will be Biden vs Trump. I think Biden is almost a for gone conclusion, though it is clear Democrats don't want him, however that is only because of fear of loosing to Trump, and possibly any other candidate not named Trump.
Trump is far from the GOP candidate and if Eric is right he won't be, in spirit of Trump humpers.
I reject that Biden will preserve democracy any better than Trump. I reject the reverse of that premise, that Trump would destroy democracy. In fact Biden has demonstrated he is the totalitarian liberals say they fear. They are literally gaslighting defending Biden and continuing to say Trump is an existential threat. They are both equally bad for America just in different ways.
I am in the camp of not voting for either, well aware one of them will win if they are the candidates.
If GOP voters are stupid enough to nominate Trump they can own that decision without me.
I hope that you are right. As poorly as Biden has performed as President, I don't see any evidence that he has or has attempted to operate outside the parameters of the constitution. There is however a mountain of evidence that Trump attempted to trample the constitution. If such evidence regarding Biden surfaces, I can change my mind, but it would have to be actual evidence not just some bs spouted by the pillow guy or equivalent.
Student loan forgiveness, not enforcing the sovereignty of the U.S. at the southern border, massive debt, gas stoves, water heaters, climate agenda.
While the executive has broad authority in how they enforce the law there is a gray area that fades to black.
Even if not unconstitutional by definition Biden is using his executive authority in a totalitarian way. His energy policy is unrealistically forcing EV and renewable power at the expense of the security of the U.S. and the economy.
Totalitarian does not mean illegal, it means ignoring a massive swathe of the American people and states to implement partisan policies by force.
As for Trump I can only infer you are referring to Jan 6, yawn. If you are referring to Ukraine money that matter could have been settled by Congress asserting it's authority in the matter and it would have been done. Instead we got two sham impeachments which were nothing more than a Democrat promise before Trump even won 2016.
What you are describing for Biden is bad policy vs. acting outside the parameters of the constitution (when the student loan plan was ruled unconstitutional by supreme court, at least Biden abided that decsion)
Regarding Trump, if you actually have an open mind to review a small fraction of the evidence from the source, I am pasting some below with links. I find its better to go directly to the source when possible since our favored media personalities are paid to tell us what we want to hear for ratings so in this context conservative media risks losing their audience if they are to honest regarding Trump's conduct. If you do end up reviewing the information below and still think Trump did not try to end democracy, ask yourself if you would do the same mental gymnastics to rationalize this behavior from a Democrat. (btw, Trump himself wrote about terminating parts of the constitution on twitter)
To answer your question directly - some of the ways of the ways that Trump tried to end democracy include: (1) trying to coerce Brad Raffensberger (and other state secretaries) to overturn the voters in GA (and other states) to give trump the election and then later after Brad refused recruiting a primary challenger and trying to oust Brad as retribution for not going along. (2) recruiting slates of fake electors to fraudulently submit false documents on his behalf attempting to defraud the government. (3) Pressuring Pence to thrown out the electoral college and unilaterally make him President, (4) encouraging an armed mob to go to the capital on his behalf.
Pence directly on what Trump tried to get him to do (you make your own judgement on who has a better reputation for honesty between Pence and Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tglap7tGwHg
I do agree with you about holding candidates to high moral standards, or they will not get my vote. For the sake of some people in Colorado, I hope a better candidate will appear and run to represent the people in my district.
How 'people of faith' could rally around Trump after his pre-election comments in 2016 always amazed me, but, then I was a 'party over principle' skeptic when I was a newly registered Democrat over 50 years ago in an essentially 1 party (D) state.
I attribute to Trump the failure to build the wall (even though *I personally* know he would have needed the cooperation of others to do so) to him specifically because he (either willfully ignorant, or outright lying) made the claim that he'd accomplish it without, apparently, recognizing this fact. He not only made the claim, it was a significant plank in his platform. He RAN ON IT. Once in office, he did not do much to build the bridges of cooperation within his own party or outside it to get it done. As Harry Truman used to say, 'the buck stops here' as it does with EVERY president.
I agree he had an uphill battle to fight against the 'Russia collusion' stories etc. But again, now that we've all had a good long look at this self-absorbed narcissist who is only concerned with his own interests and ego, I share the belief that the last place this man belongs is in the White House. While I don't condone the illegal and shady methods the Democrats used to try to either keep him out of office or hamstring him once in it, I understand their desperation. Not that their guy is any better, mind you.
As for legal hearings etc, I am in the legal profession and I've already seen and heard enough about his actions and the evidence against him to know that in at least 2 of the 4 cases against him, he's in deep trouble and will likely serve some period of time in prison. Just like with the 'stolen election' nonsense, I actually took the time to read most of the pleadings/complaints filed alleging this across the country and not only did they contain nothing factual in evidence, in some cases the attorneys made basic procedural errors in either writing the documents or in filing them, causing them to be dismissed outright. Errors I'd be embarrased to make and are potentially cause for malpractice accusations. Either that, or they willingly did this, knowing that in a court of LAW they had no case, but in the court of PUBLIC OPINION, they did, with supporters who largely won't bother to read the actual cases. I don't know what his criteria for hiring counsel is but these have got to be some of the dumbest or laziest lawyers on the planet. But maybe they're loyal to him, and that's all that matters to him, I guess.
It may be that 4 more years of Biden is the only cure for Trump. Requiring minimal literacy of voters would take care of the problem, but it won't happen
I've been thinking about what you said yesterday and today. I think that what we're seeing is that nothing is private anymore. The behavior has always been present in amoral or sinning politicians, we just didn't see it. Nothing seems to sink people, anymore, unless you're a person who speaks out. RBrand, EMusk, DTrump, etc. Do you have suggestions for what we do now?
I’m pretty sure even Mr. Erickson would agree that DeSantis was given assurances that Trump would be out of the picture. I think he’s even put it in writing.
By the time DeSantis officially got into the race, everyone was saying “he can’t win”. Just Google “Trump can’t win”. You’ll find all kinds of folks saying “Trump can’t win”. But it was just hope-full thinking from the establishment on both sides. But now, real panic has set in because it certainly looks like he could win - short of them killing him. It’s apparent now that jail probably won’t stop him. So DeSantis is doubling down on “he can’t win” in a very public way.
Ron DeSantis: Donald Trump's chance of being elected if convicted 'as close to zero as you can get' - Washington Times
It really is absurd to think that any of the so-called GOP contenders believe they have a chance unless Trump is taken out by something besides an election. In a normal election, the polls would have already caused their money to disappear. But because they still desperately hope that something will take Trump out, they soldier on. All the Trump hatters from Soros to Erickson are simply holding on to that hope. And sadly they mostly hold the same conviction- anybody (including DeSantis, Christy, Biden, Michelle Obama, the idiot governor of California, Harris, etc.) absolutely anyone but Trump. The ramifications of this fact I think give Trump his best shot at winning.
Mr. Erickson like many, has said he was wrong about Trump- that he actually produced good results as President. But he doesn’t like him - you know - orange hair, mean mouthed, not in his view a Christian, etc. But Americans, if you believe the polls, think it is inherently unfair to allow arguably the most productive President in at least decades to be attacked so unfairly. Even DeSantis says the attacks against Trump are politically motivated. These attacks are a crime. If you’re not fighting against those attacks, you lose standing with millions of voters.
What if Trump’s best chance of retaking the WH is to get thrown in jail and continue running from his cell. That may now be their greatest fear. Here’s a conspiracy theory for you. The entire HATE TRUMP community is conspiring to take him out - by any means possible. If you think that’s a conspiracy theory then you probably still believe masks were/are an effective measure against COVID. You also probably believe that COVID was just Mother Nature rearing its ugly head. But millions differ. If any part of that is you, you’re on the wrong side of history.
Ask Mr. Erickson if he believes DeSantis would have ever run against Trump if he hadn’t been assured that Trump would be taken out. Or for that matter, ask if any of the GOP candidates would still be in the running if they were not at least hopeful that Trump will be taken out. And if you think they care how it’s done, you’re naive at best.
What TRUMP HATERS are doing is way more immoral than anything Trump has ever done.
"But Americans, if you believe the polls, think it is inherently unfair to allow arguably the most productive President in at least decades to be attacked so unfairly." Yes, I would say most agree with that statement but not with "orange hair, mean mouthed, not in his view a Christian, etc." Previous Trump voters on the whole probably could tolerate some of his prior behaviors because he did get somethings done and showed we could stand up but he did far less than he could have and made unforced errors. However, taking Christian morals out of it, his current behaviors are not what most logical people want in our next President who has to face all the problems we now have. He acts like a spoiled kid whose toys were taken away, and has made one bad decision after another. Instead of being a kingmaker he is willing to put us at risk. We do not need another self-serving old man who may or may not even be up for the challenge. Face it a stroke or heart attack has a very real chance, then what? Fiery rhetoric is not a game plan, emotional attachment not a reason to vote when a younger person that could go 8 yrs, hopefully get the under 50 on board for more than 1 election, and doesn't provide the visceral hate that Trump does. He is even backtracking on things he did right. His best quality was as an unknown player but that no longer applies and he has shown how easily he can be manipulated. Add back in his less than moral character which is what we dislike about the current govt, the willingness to lie, cheat, turning on others, etc. it is easy to see why we no longer support him for President. So, no, a larger majority of non-Trump voters are not haters we just see the bigger, longer-range picture, put our country first and hope more people see we have better options and it is time to move to a younger more moral candidate.
Trump will be "taken out" the same way he was last time, via a shellacking at the ballot box to the near vegetable, Joe Biden. He will b*tch and moan and cry stolen election just like he did last time (and for that matter when he lost the Iowa caucus to Cruz). He and Kari Lake can do cosplay as pres and vp from mar a lago for all any one cares. At least he wont be in a position to trample on the constitution like he attempted to the last time he handed the Whitehouse to a geriatric near vegetable dem and in doing so gave us this high inflation, high crime, open border disaster.
Amen, I couldn't say it better. We are hypocrites if we don't call out immoral behavior on our own side (and there's plenty on both sides). I too am done voting for these clowns. I suspect 2024 will be the first election I just stay home since I first became elible to vote. Candidate quality has really deteriorated since the Reagan era. I am tired of holding my nose to vote for people of little character and even lesser morals who just are a different side of the same coin and are there to mostly appeal to their own egos and/or fatten their wallets. I owe no one my vote. Maybe the R's will get sick of losing and figure out they need to put up better candidates.
I only agree with you up to a point. I don't want Trump as a president again for a number of reasons. I will financially support another choice during the primary season. But, if Trump wins the nomination anyway and the choice is between him and Biden, Obama, Harris or Newsom. I am not staying him but supporting the lesser evil. You may feel this is not a Christian response but I don't feel like faced with all undesirable choices, getting behind the least undesirable is not un-Christian. Sitting at home as our culture, values, faith and religious freedom is getting destroyed is just too passive for me.
Trump has just lost some Christian votes with his recent words about abortion. I know it's not enough to make a huge difference, but the numbers continue to creep up.
I do not know of any NEW voters that Trump has picked up. But I do know a LOT of previous supporters that he has lost. I just do not see how he can win the general election, even against the geriatric.
he is revealing slowly what we knew him to be all along - a fake conservative.
I had this conflict for years with my business partner until we separated because of it. My constant criticism of his position was that we should not be involved in playing the game if we are going to play cricket when the market is playing rugby.
He was a stuck-up New England prude that spent all his time polishing his image as a smart and good person while he constantly failed at meeting his performance expectations.
Hey look at me... I am Mr. Wonderful even though I suck at my job getting things done!
There is something I consider a weird tick in some people that are so damn sensitive to image. I could give a flying eff about anything other than winning the game within the ethical rules of the game. This tendency to slip into moral judgement of what are simply a requirement of ethics, I think, is a flaw in the judge and not a flaw in the judged.
Ethics is the the game requirement, not morality. Ethics are defined, morality is completely subjective.
If you fail to recognize the shifting landscape and adjust accordingly, you will consistently get your hat handed to yourself in defeat.
I have this conflict with some of my board members. We have a business within a very competitive market where all the sales partners are young, high-testosterone professionals. In one annual event done in Las Vegas, groups of these people, male and female, head to a Vegas strip club. The company does not reimburse for those expenses if my sales people attend, but I have no policy to prevent it. I don't encourage them or discourage them from attending.
Our competitors in our market not only attend, but spend a lot of money at those events.
I have some board members that want me to update the policy to disallow any employee, even on their own time, to participate in any activity that includes naked people. Thankfully the majority of the directors vote them down as they see these activities as harmless, normal and necessary for us to maintain friendly relationships with the business referral network.
I agree even though I would never attend.
The entire mainstream media is cool with corrupting democracy in collusion with the Democrat political machine and we are going to wring our hands about a candidate that types mean Tweets and then vote for his opponent in a temper tantrum of hate because we feel that he damages our image as good moral people? In terms of ethics, the Democrats are crap. And then for Republicans to make their response a bar of high morality... well hell no. Talk about tying both hands behind your back!
Wake up people. Look in the mirror and grow some self awareness that your behavior to vote for destruction rather than suffer a hit to your self perception of high and mighty morality is the stuff of personal dysfunction. It is a sign that you are not really whole... not really a self-confident individual that can throw your shoulders back and stand upright in the fight for what is truly right and righteous.
Grab the ring of high ethics, but don't get your underwear in a bunch over your emotional turmoil over morality.
If you are a soldier fighting a war, do you freeze with the immorality of killing the enemy or do you make a decision based on the ethics of your current role for the current situation? If the former you are defeated and likely dead.
Moralist are far from absolute... they are as variable as the wind. What one person sees as moral the person next door might consider cause for severe reprimand. Lauren Boebert is a good example. She was with a date and they were behaving like two young sexual humans. The more prudish are aghast at the behavior. The more rational and reasonable look at it as nothing and nobody else's business.
Why go there? Why allow yourself to be hooked into the game of some giant American Idol competition where the branding of Democrats is positive and the branding of Republicans is negative?
Russel Brand is being destroyed by the Democrat media after being loved by the Democrat media only because he dared to oppose the Democrat machine. I know we will have Republican prudes that jump on that "destroy Russel Brand" bandwagon because that behavior is soooo... unbecoming of a high and mighty conservative moralist.
Basically the Democrats do very well weaponizing Republicans against themselves in this way. The Democrats play with zero morality and zero ethics with a goal to win. The Republicans, in turn, play with a demand for high morality that supersedes any perspective on ethics, and keep getting beat at the polls and cannot understand why.
I wish more of my Republican friends would wake up and play rugby.
You miss one point, sometimes a lack of moral ethics can be detrimental in the end. Say the high achiever who happily embezzled from you or sold company secrets to competition, etc. The person we elect can be too good (Jimmy Carter) but when you have really bad candidates it is usually more than just one slip-up, it is a pattern. When you have strong candidates that have a higher moral standard than others why would you discard them in favor of one who has many failings? Choices do matter and just as crime starts small and then grows people who don't have a moral compass are not the best choice, especially when you DO have better choices out there. Trump may win the primary but not the election. Add in his less than moral character which is what we dislike about the current govt, the willingness to lie, cheat, etc. it is easy to see why we no longer support him for President. As for Lauren Boebert I don't believe in getting in people's bedrooms but when divorce, separation is as easy as it is why cheat, especially when a public figure - poor decision making.
I wish it were this easy...vote for a person with good Christian morals and that person will turn (or at least start to turn) the country around if he/she wins the Presidency. Unfortunately, those of us over 50 years old (of course most close to that age were too young to vote, but still may have heard of the U.S.'s economic decline and overall weakness on the world stage from our parents and grandparents) will remember the vote for a moral man and how it all turned out. That person's name is Jimmy Carter. That's not to say to vote for an immoral person, but in the case of running the country, more aspects need to be considered in addition to morals. I'll gladly trade in a few moral points for other characteristics that will turn the country from the nose-dive it's currently in.
I will vote down ballot Republican, but under NO circumstance will I ever vote for the clown known as Donald Trump. It’s time we rid our party of this grifter and his band of degenerates. It appalls me that we have Trump and Lake(former Democrats) now calling lifelong Republicans RINO’s. Enough is enough. Good riddance!!!
I agree, we should not have to vote for morally decrepit candidates
Guys - Its going to ultimately be Biden vs. Trump, no matter how many of us don't want that. The choice is easy. One guy is a krappy Democrat near vegetable with krappy Democrat polices, the other guy tried to illegally end democracy from the whitehouse because he was butt-hurt about losing to the near vegetable in the last election. I will hold my nose and vote for the person that is most likely to preserve democracy (Biden).
I reject both those positions.
I agree with RKelly.
In the first place, I still don't believe that Biden will be the Dem's candidate. Almost any other dem candidate, barring perhaps Harris, could beat Trump due to his unlikability and having made so many enemies out of people that should have been his allies.
Still, its depressing to contemplate a Trump - Biden election. Sometimes I think that a parliamentary system might have some advantages although I consider myself to be a constitutional conservative.
Just curious which positions you reject as there are several implicit in my comment: that it will come down to Biden Trump? that Biden is a krappy near vegetable? that Trump lost the last election? that Trump is butt-hurt about that loss? that Trump tried to end democracy? That Trump is riskier to democracy than Biden?
The choice is to Vote for Someone Else in the Primary!! I do doubt Biden will be it though they will keep him till end then put someone last min.
I reject it will be Biden vs Trump. I think Biden is almost a for gone conclusion, though it is clear Democrats don't want him, however that is only because of fear of loosing to Trump, and possibly any other candidate not named Trump.
Trump is far from the GOP candidate and if Eric is right he won't be, in spirit of Trump humpers.
I reject that Biden will preserve democracy any better than Trump. I reject the reverse of that premise, that Trump would destroy democracy. In fact Biden has demonstrated he is the totalitarian liberals say they fear. They are literally gaslighting defending Biden and continuing to say Trump is an existential threat. They are both equally bad for America just in different ways.
I am in the camp of not voting for either, well aware one of them will win if they are the candidates.
If GOP voters are stupid enough to nominate Trump they can own that decision without me.
I hope that you are right. As poorly as Biden has performed as President, I don't see any evidence that he has or has attempted to operate outside the parameters of the constitution. There is however a mountain of evidence that Trump attempted to trample the constitution. If such evidence regarding Biden surfaces, I can change my mind, but it would have to be actual evidence not just some bs spouted by the pillow guy or equivalent.
Student loan forgiveness, not enforcing the sovereignty of the U.S. at the southern border, massive debt, gas stoves, water heaters, climate agenda.
While the executive has broad authority in how they enforce the law there is a gray area that fades to black.
Even if not unconstitutional by definition Biden is using his executive authority in a totalitarian way. His energy policy is unrealistically forcing EV and renewable power at the expense of the security of the U.S. and the economy.
Totalitarian does not mean illegal, it means ignoring a massive swathe of the American people and states to implement partisan policies by force.
As for Trump I can only infer you are referring to Jan 6, yawn. If you are referring to Ukraine money that matter could have been settled by Congress asserting it's authority in the matter and it would have been done. Instead we got two sham impeachments which were nothing more than a Democrat promise before Trump even won 2016.
What you are describing for Biden is bad policy vs. acting outside the parameters of the constitution (when the student loan plan was ruled unconstitutional by supreme court, at least Biden abided that decsion)
Regarding Trump, if you actually have an open mind to review a small fraction of the evidence from the source, I am pasting some below with links. I find its better to go directly to the source when possible since our favored media personalities are paid to tell us what we want to hear for ratings so in this context conservative media risks losing their audience if they are to honest regarding Trump's conduct. If you do end up reviewing the information below and still think Trump did not try to end democracy, ask yourself if you would do the same mental gymnastics to rationalize this behavior from a Democrat. (btw, Trump himself wrote about terminating parts of the constitution on twitter)
To answer your question directly - some of the ways of the ways that Trump tried to end democracy include: (1) trying to coerce Brad Raffensberger (and other state secretaries) to overturn the voters in GA (and other states) to give trump the election and then later after Brad refused recruiting a primary challenger and trying to oust Brad as retribution for not going along. (2) recruiting slates of fake electors to fraudulently submit false documents on his behalf attempting to defraud the government. (3) Pressuring Pence to thrown out the electoral college and unilaterally make him President, (4) encouraging an armed mob to go to the capital on his behalf.
Trumps full audio call with Raffensberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhBxg17QqZ4
Giulliana admitting in court filing that he made false statements about Ruby Freeman (which formed the basis for much of Trumps coercing of Raffensberger in audio above): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf
Pence directly on what Trump tried to get him to do (you make your own judgement on who has a better reputation for honesty between Pence and Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tglap7tGwHg
The actual DC indictment (I encourage you to actually read it, its worth it): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23893878-trump-dc-indictment
Same for GA and same comment about actually reading it:https://www.ajc.com/news/annotated-the-fulton-county-georgia-grand-jury-indictment-of-donald-trump/OR6JJJMX3BDTFPCZYIREEXKLOI/
I do agree with you about holding candidates to high moral standards, or they will not get my vote. For the sake of some people in Colorado, I hope a better candidate will appear and run to represent the people in my district.
The primaries matter, we need to encourage our GE only voter friends to get out and vote in the primaries... stop the terrible candidates there!
How 'people of faith' could rally around Trump after his pre-election comments in 2016 always amazed me, but, then I was a 'party over principle' skeptic when I was a newly registered Democrat over 50 years ago in an essentially 1 party (D) state.
Sometimes a vote requires discerning the lesser of two evils.