This new crop of Republicans are much more in tune with the base, and are actually popular and well-liked, unlike the charisma black hole that is Ted Cruz, or the neoptism hire Jeb Bush.
Ted Cruz is more charismatic than DeSantis. I like the guy, but he has no charisma.
Trump attacking DeSantis and Hayley is costing him.
Haley is a psychotic, warmongering neocon joke. If DeSantis follows her, I don't think he stands any chance.
He won't run 3rd party if he can't win, out of spite, because he still needs Republican support to protect him from prison. He can't make his "brand" toxic to 70%+ of Americans. He's not a principled person. He will do whatever helps his status and legacy the most, and being a traitor won't help that.
Stop the wishful thinking. You're just saying this because you want to persuade people to back DeSantis. Trump can and will run as a third party candidate (he'll probably be dead by the time they transfer him to prison), or at least not back DeSantis, and that is a nightmare scenario. Take your medicine, support Trump, and it will be DeSantis's turn in 2028.
If DeSantis is not a neocon, would I prefer him over Trump? Yes. But no, because Trump will run as a third party.
You literally watch none of his speeches or press events. Clips of him owning the libs at pressers get posted to twitter all the time. Maybe you should do your research before trash talking what you don't know.
Haley is a psychotic, warmongering neocon joke. If DeSantis follows her, I don't think he stands any chance.
Not sure what your hatred of Haley is based on since she was just a mouthpiece for the Trump admin at the UN, but I'll just remind you that while no viable Republican candidate "stands any chance" of getting YOUR vote, you don't get a vote, so it doesn't matter.
Matter of fact, since you support America's enemies, hate America, and want to see a weak America rather than a strong one, I would say you hating and opposing a candidate is a big point in their favor with the actual voters.
Stop the wishful thinking. You're just saying this because you want to persuade people to back DeSantis.
Wrong. I don't give a shit about convincing anyone in this sub of anything. I'm not shilling for or promoting DeSantis, I'm giving my honest opinions. You, for example, aren't American and don't get to vote in our elections, so I could care less who you support. Hell, even among Americans, most of us don't matter when it comes to Presidential elections, only the people in swing states do, which is a tiny minority. If I wanted to shill for DeSantis, I'd go volunteer for his campaign and make a much bigger difference than some posts on a message board a handful of people will read.
I think you oppose DeSantis because your goals are the same as Russia's goals: to see a divided and weakened America, like we had under Trump. You're afraid of DeSantis because he could be a Reagan-like unifier that consolidates enough power that America will become more assertive on the world stage again. While you dress up all your opinions as being about the culture war, I can easily spot the inconsistencies and see where your logic goes completely off the rails. I can see how some of your positions make sense in internal logic, but others suddenly lose their footing. I'm old and wise enough to know this is the mark of a man whose professed beliefs and true beliefs are not in alignment. This is exactly the same as how Russia's state media acts, and for the same reasons. While you pretend to want what it best for the Right, you really don't, you only want to support the Right to the extent it promotes conflict, division, and weakness. If the Right became the clear, dominant power in US politics, you'd switch sides.
You will, of course, deny all of this, but I have very high confidence in my assessment. People lie. Logic doesn't lie.
Trump can and will run as a third party candidate (he'll probably be dead by the time they transfer him to prison), or at least not back DeSantis, and that is a nightmare scenario. Take your medicine, support Trump, and it will be DeSantis's turn in 2028.
"Stop the wishful thinking. You're just saying this because you want to persuade people to back DeSantis Trump."
It's not going to happen. People used to fear Trump. They don't anymore. Trump couldn't throw the election even if he wanted to, but if he did try, the majority of Republicans would be out for his blood, and since nearly all Democrats already want it, we would gladly serve Trump up to them on a silver platter.
If DeSantis is not a neocon, would I prefer him over Trump? Yes.
You obviously don't know what "neocon" means. If I translate the word "neocon" from Russian, I believe you are misusing the term to mean "any American who supports a nationalist, interventionist, strong foreign policy, as opposed to a weak and passive one where Russia and China get to do as they please."
Of course in reality, "neocon" means: A liberal who wants to use the US military to spread democracy by force such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially near Israel to benefit Israel's national security.
No Republicans are neocons. All the famous neocons that defined the term during the GWB admin, quickly switched sides in the Obama years, and all strongly opposed Trump.
I can see why you hate "neocons" so much, since your goal is a weak America: the natural state is that Republicans support aggressive use of the US military, while Democrats oppose it. "neocons" are Democrat hawks, basically, who justify their hawkishness based on this "good versus evil" view that Democracy is inherently good and must triumph over other forms of government. This makes them your worst nightmare, since they convert the inherently dovish faction to hawks. Trump is the opposite: a member of the default hawkish faction - Republicans - who advocates for dovish foreign policy. He is the anti-neocon, in other words. That's why you love him so much. You see Trump as a return to right wing isolationism and weakness in America.
So in the future, resist your training at least with me, and instead of dishonestly using the word "neocon" to describe Republicans, use the more correct term "hawks" or "interventionists".
But no, because Trump will run as a third party.
If you think Republicans are going to support Trump out of fear, you are as delusional as a tranny.
While I agree with most of what you posted, I am going to be contest your outlook on Trump on the Isolationist front. While he may be more isolationist minded than typical Republican hawks, everything I have seen is that he is more in the vein of the old "Speak Softly, carry a big stick" style of "isolation" practiced by T. Roosevelt.
Which is to say, he would generally avoid boots on the ground and getting directly involved, but he would pimpslap a ho if needed.
When Assad dropped chemical weapons on the rebels in Syria, Trump ordered the airstrip the chemical attack was launched from flattened with mass cruise missile strike. Suddenly, the chemical attacks stopped.
When Putin started dicking around in Donbass more, Trump broke from the old Obama policy and started authorizing heavy weapons to be sold to Ukraine. Which probably was a godsend because it allowed them to have some knowledge when the time came for a true war.
When some Wagner forces in Syria attempted to attack a US outpost to try and intimidate us, Mattis and Trump gave the order to have them laid the fuck out.
And of course, bringing N. Korea to the negotiating table by responding with "My button's bigger" when they tried to intimidate with nukes yet again.
However, I will concede that he (or at least a ton of his supporters and cohorts) have moved toward a true isolationist policy instead of the "Keep them cowed through fear" style that actually works.
When Assad dropped chemical weapons on the rebels in Syria, Trump ordered the airstrip the chemical attack was launched from flattened with mass cruise missile strike. Suddenly, the chemical attacks stopped.
That was more of a face-saving move since he warned the russians in advance and reports were that enemy aircraft were evacuated before the strike.
When some Wagner forces in Syria attempted to attack a US outpost to try and intimidate us, Mattis and Trump gave the order to have them laid the fuck out.
I have never heard that Mattis, let alone Trump, was involved in that at all. It was just a local action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham It was juts local commanders responding to defend themselves with the assets on hand. The significance of the battle only became apparent later on when it became clear that Wagner was involved in spite of the Russian liaison lying to tell the local commander that no Russians were involved: "According to sources in Wagner, cited by news media as well as the Department of Defense, U.S. forces were in constant contact with the official Russian liaison officer posted in Deir ez-Zor throughout the engagement, and only opened fire after they had received assurances that no regular Russian troops were in action or at risk."
So no, Trump doesn't deserve any credit here.
When Putin started dicking around in Donbass more, Trump broke from the old Obama policy and started authorizing heavy weapons to be sold to Ukraine. Which probably was a godsend because it allowed them to have some knowledge when the time came for a true war.
I don't believe any of that happened. Either the "dicking" or the heavy weapons.
I do know that Trump fucked himself up royally by putting aid to Ukraine on hold and then recording himself in a phone call pressuring Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, implying that Trump was demanding Zelensky do him personal political favors in exchange for the aid Trump had no right to freeze. This caused a huge shitshow that the Democrats wouldn't shut up about, ultimately leading to his 1st impeachment.
And of course, bringing N. Korea to the negotiating table by responding with "My button's bigger" when they tried to intimidate with nukes yet again.
Trump talks big and then legitimizes the enemy in his lust after a "Nixon goes to China" moment which never happened. You know what happened as a result of Trump's weird love-hate relationship with North Korea? Absolutely nothing.
Now let me counterpoint you:
Trump was an absolute cuck with Turkey and the Kurds. He humiliated himself with that letter he wrote to Erdogan bluffing and begging, then getting his pathetic bluff called and backing down like a bitch.
Trump was an absolute cuck in Afghanistan, trying to make "peace" with an enemy that cared only for conquest. Trump's policy was objectively bad and stupid. He did not get anything, he only gave and gave with nothing in return. It was pathetic and one-sided. The Taliban knew they could exploit his weakness and they did. Their offensives began under Trump and he did nothing except ignore them. They greatly accelerated under Biden, and Biden was able to point to Trump and dodge any political damage by using Trump as cover.
Trump was all talk. He wanted people to believe that he was "walk softly and carry a big stick" but he was not. He was a weak bitch. Even Obama had more balls when it came to national defense (not because he wanted to, but so he wouldn't get outflanked). In fact, it is BECAUSE Trump was Republican and a blowhard that he could sell out US foreign policy to the extent he did.
DeSantis has no charisma. Cease your coping. Regardless of your whacked conspiracy theories, I like the guy, even if he is a neocon. I just can also see that he has no charisma.
You literally watch none of his speeches or press events. Clips of him owning the libs at pressers get posted to twitter all the time. Maybe you should do your research before trash talking what you don't know.
A zinger is not the same as having charisma.
Not sure what your hatred of Haley is based on since she was just a mouthpiece for the Trump admin at the UN, but I'll just remind you that while no viable Republican candidate "stands any chance" of getting YOUR vote, you don't get a vote, so it doesn't matter.
Correct. I don't get a vote. And neither do you, because you're not a millionaire. Also, what I meant is that a bloodthirsty neocon has no chance of getting the support of the Republican base, which the elites use as a fig-leaf for their own domination.
Matter of fact, since you support America's enemies, hate America, and want to see a weak America rather than a strong one, I would say you hating and opposing a candidate is a big point in their favor with the actual voters.
Damn, you caught me. My opposition to Haley is... me not wanting Murica to be stronk.
If I wanted to shill for DeSantis, I'd go volunteer for his campaign and make a much bigger difference than some posts on a message board a handful of people will read.
Sure, but you seem to think that this board is important enough for the FSB to troll, so...
I think you oppose DeSantis because your goals are the same as Russia's goals: to see a divided and weakened America, like we had under Trump.
This sounds like a mask off moment for you. I actually like Biden because his disasters weakened America immensely.
Here's my philosophy: if America can be salvaged, I like a strong America. If it can't be, then I'd rather have you be weakened so you can't inflict as much damage on the rest of the world. I know you won't believe me, because you persuaded your Cold Warriro self that I'm paid by the FSB, and I don't care.
America will become more assertive on the world stage again
What, export more rainbow flags to the world? No, I don't like that. And I get it, you don't like rainbow flags, and you don't like the rest of the world identifying your country with that. But fact of the matter is that at the moment, a stronger America means stronger wokeness, and I don't want that.
While you pretend to want what it best for the Right, you really don't, you only want to support the Right to the extent it promotes conflict, division, and weakness. If the Right became the clear, dominant power in US politics, you'd switch sides.
Depends on the kind of 'right'.
It's not going to happen. People used to fear Trump. They don't anymore. Trump couldn't throw the election even if he wanted to, but if he did try, the majority of Republicans would be out for his blood, and since nearly all Democrats already want it, we would gladly serve Trump up to them on a silver platter.
Then this is self-serving bias.
I believe you are misusing the term to mean "any American who supports a nationalist, interventionist, strong foreign policy
Yes, by wrecking one country after another while screeching about 'democracy' (which they should really export to their own country, as the Princeton study showed).
Democrat hawks, basically, who justify their hawkishness based on this "good versus evil" view that Democracy is inherently good and must triumph over other forms of government
I might support this if it were sincere. But obviously, it isn't. For one, there's no such thing as 'democracy', only oligrachy. And the kinds of regimes called democracies are the ones that support US hegemony, like Germany, regardless of the foreign minister saying that it's not her job to care about German voters. So much for democracy.
Trump is the opposite: a member of the default hawkish faction - Republicans - who advocates for dovish foreign policy. He is the anti-neocon, in other words. That's why you love him so much. You see Trump as a return to right wing isolationism and weakness in America.
The funny thing is that if you were smart, you'd advocate for minimal foreign entanglements, which would lead to much greater economic growth. It's not been exactly great for the US. The problem is that it creats even worse issues for the rest of the world, which is why I oppose it.
So in the future, resist your training at least with me, and instead of dishonestly using the word "neocon" to describe Republicans, use the more correct term "hawks" or "interventionists".
Compromise, I'll call them psychotic, bloodthirsty warmongers. That OK?
If you think Republicans are going to support Trump out of fear, you are as delusional as a tranny.
I'm not even going to respond. You're worse than Trump with his lame “Ron DeSanctimonious”. If you want to try a tactic to boost Trump and undermine DeSantis, try to pick one that literally anyone who listens to the man wouldn't reject out of hand.
Ted Cruz is more charismatic than DeSantis. I like the guy, but he has no charisma.
Haley is a psychotic, warmongering neocon joke. If DeSantis follows her, I don't think he stands any chance.
Stop the wishful thinking. You're just saying this because you want to persuade people to back DeSantis. Trump can and will run as a third party candidate (he'll probably be dead by the time they transfer him to prison), or at least not back DeSantis, and that is a nightmare scenario. Take your medicine, support Trump, and it will be DeSantis's turn in 2028.
If DeSantis is not a neocon, would I prefer him over Trump? Yes. But no, because Trump will run as a third party.
lol, dumbest thing you've ever written.
You literally watch none of his speeches or press events. Clips of him owning the libs at pressers get posted to twitter all the time. Maybe you should do your research before trash talking what you don't know.
Not sure what your hatred of Haley is based on since she was just a mouthpiece for the Trump admin at the UN, but I'll just remind you that while no viable Republican candidate "stands any chance" of getting YOUR vote, you don't get a vote, so it doesn't matter.
Matter of fact, since you support America's enemies, hate America, and want to see a weak America rather than a strong one, I would say you hating and opposing a candidate is a big point in their favor with the actual voters.
Wrong. I don't give a shit about convincing anyone in this sub of anything. I'm not shilling for or promoting DeSantis, I'm giving my honest opinions. You, for example, aren't American and don't get to vote in our elections, so I could care less who you support. Hell, even among Americans, most of us don't matter when it comes to Presidential elections, only the people in swing states do, which is a tiny minority. If I wanted to shill for DeSantis, I'd go volunteer for his campaign and make a much bigger difference than some posts on a message board a handful of people will read.
I think you oppose DeSantis because your goals are the same as Russia's goals: to see a divided and weakened America, like we had under Trump. You're afraid of DeSantis because he could be a Reagan-like unifier that consolidates enough power that America will become more assertive on the world stage again. While you dress up all your opinions as being about the culture war, I can easily spot the inconsistencies and see where your logic goes completely off the rails. I can see how some of your positions make sense in internal logic, but others suddenly lose their footing. I'm old and wise enough to know this is the mark of a man whose professed beliefs and true beliefs are not in alignment. This is exactly the same as how Russia's state media acts, and for the same reasons. While you pretend to want what it best for the Right, you really don't, you only want to support the Right to the extent it promotes conflict, division, and weakness. If the Right became the clear, dominant power in US politics, you'd switch sides.
You will, of course, deny all of this, but I have very high confidence in my assessment. People lie. Logic doesn't lie.
"Stop the wishful thinking. You're just saying this because you want to persuade people to back
DeSantisTrump."It's not going to happen. People used to fear Trump. They don't anymore. Trump couldn't throw the election even if he wanted to, but if he did try, the majority of Republicans would be out for his blood, and since nearly all Democrats already want it, we would gladly serve Trump up to them on a silver platter.
You obviously don't know what "neocon" means. If I translate the word "neocon" from Russian, I believe you are misusing the term to mean "any American who supports a nationalist, interventionist, strong foreign policy, as opposed to a weak and passive one where Russia and China get to do as they please."
Of course in reality, "neocon" means: A liberal who wants to use the US military to spread democracy by force such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially near Israel to benefit Israel's national security.
No Republicans are neocons. All the famous neocons that defined the term during the GWB admin, quickly switched sides in the Obama years, and all strongly opposed Trump.
I can see why you hate "neocons" so much, since your goal is a weak America: the natural state is that Republicans support aggressive use of the US military, while Democrats oppose it. "neocons" are Democrat hawks, basically, who justify their hawkishness based on this "good versus evil" view that Democracy is inherently good and must triumph over other forms of government. This makes them your worst nightmare, since they convert the inherently dovish faction to hawks. Trump is the opposite: a member of the default hawkish faction - Republicans - who advocates for dovish foreign policy. He is the anti-neocon, in other words. That's why you love him so much. You see Trump as a return to right wing isolationism and weakness in America.
So in the future, resist your training at least with me, and instead of dishonestly using the word "neocon" to describe Republicans, use the more correct term "hawks" or "interventionists".
If you think Republicans are going to support Trump out of fear, you are as delusional as a tranny.
While I agree with most of what you posted, I am going to be contest your outlook on Trump on the Isolationist front. While he may be more isolationist minded than typical Republican hawks, everything I have seen is that he is more in the vein of the old "Speak Softly, carry a big stick" style of "isolation" practiced by T. Roosevelt.
Which is to say, he would generally avoid boots on the ground and getting directly involved, but he would pimpslap a ho if needed.
When Assad dropped chemical weapons on the rebels in Syria, Trump ordered the airstrip the chemical attack was launched from flattened with mass cruise missile strike. Suddenly, the chemical attacks stopped.
When Putin started dicking around in Donbass more, Trump broke from the old Obama policy and started authorizing heavy weapons to be sold to Ukraine. Which probably was a godsend because it allowed them to have some knowledge when the time came for a true war.
When some Wagner forces in Syria attempted to attack a US outpost to try and intimidate us, Mattis and Trump gave the order to have them laid the fuck out.
And of course, bringing N. Korea to the negotiating table by responding with "My button's bigger" when they tried to intimidate with nukes yet again.
However, I will concede that he (or at least a ton of his supporters and cohorts) have moved toward a true isolationist policy instead of the "Keep them cowed through fear" style that actually works.
That was more of a face-saving move since he warned the russians in advance and reports were that enemy aircraft were evacuated before the strike.
I have never heard that Mattis, let alone Trump, was involved in that at all. It was just a local action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham It was juts local commanders responding to defend themselves with the assets on hand. The significance of the battle only became apparent later on when it became clear that Wagner was involved in spite of the Russian liaison lying to tell the local commander that no Russians were involved: "According to sources in Wagner, cited by news media as well as the Department of Defense, U.S. forces were in constant contact with the official Russian liaison officer posted in Deir ez-Zor throughout the engagement, and only opened fire after they had received assurances that no regular Russian troops were in action or at risk."
So no, Trump doesn't deserve any credit here.
I don't believe any of that happened. Either the "dicking" or the heavy weapons.
I do know that Trump fucked himself up royally by putting aid to Ukraine on hold and then recording himself in a phone call pressuring Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, implying that Trump was demanding Zelensky do him personal political favors in exchange for the aid Trump had no right to freeze. This caused a huge shitshow that the Democrats wouldn't shut up about, ultimately leading to his 1st impeachment.
Trump talks big and then legitimizes the enemy in his lust after a "Nixon goes to China" moment which never happened. You know what happened as a result of Trump's weird love-hate relationship with North Korea? Absolutely nothing.
Now let me counterpoint you:
Trump was an absolute cuck with Turkey and the Kurds. He humiliated himself with that letter he wrote to Erdogan bluffing and begging, then getting his pathetic bluff called and backing down like a bitch.
Trump was an absolute cuck in Afghanistan, trying to make "peace" with an enemy that cared only for conquest. Trump's policy was objectively bad and stupid. He did not get anything, he only gave and gave with nothing in return. It was pathetic and one-sided. The Taliban knew they could exploit his weakness and they did. Their offensives began under Trump and he did nothing except ignore them. They greatly accelerated under Biden, and Biden was able to point to Trump and dodge any political damage by using Trump as cover.
Trump was all talk. He wanted people to believe that he was "walk softly and carry a big stick" but he was not. He was a weak bitch. Even Obama had more balls when it came to national defense (not because he wanted to, but so he wouldn't get outflanked). In fact, it is BECAUSE Trump was Republican and a blowhard that he could sell out US foreign policy to the extent he did.
DeSantis has no charisma. Cease your coping. Regardless of your whacked conspiracy theories, I like the guy, even if he is a neocon. I just can also see that he has no charisma.
A zinger is not the same as having charisma.
Correct. I don't get a vote. And neither do you, because you're not a millionaire. Also, what I meant is that a bloodthirsty neocon has no chance of getting the support of the Republican base, which the elites use as a fig-leaf for their own domination.
Damn, you caught me. My opposition to Haley is... me not wanting Murica to be stronk.
Sure, but you seem to think that this board is important enough for the FSB to troll, so...
This sounds like a mask off moment for you. I actually like Biden because his disasters weakened America immensely.
Here's my philosophy: if America can be salvaged, I like a strong America. If it can't be, then I'd rather have you be weakened so you can't inflict as much damage on the rest of the world. I know you won't believe me, because you persuaded your Cold Warriro self that I'm paid by the FSB, and I don't care.
What, export more rainbow flags to the world? No, I don't like that. And I get it, you don't like rainbow flags, and you don't like the rest of the world identifying your country with that. But fact of the matter is that at the moment, a stronger America means stronger wokeness, and I don't want that.
Depends on the kind of 'right'.
Then this is self-serving bias.
Yes, by wrecking one country after another while screeching about 'democracy' (which they should really export to their own country, as the Princeton study showed).
I might support this if it were sincere. But obviously, it isn't. For one, there's no such thing as 'democracy', only oligrachy. And the kinds of regimes called democracies are the ones that support US hegemony, like Germany, regardless of the foreign minister saying that it's not her job to care about German voters. So much for democracy.
The funny thing is that if you were smart, you'd advocate for minimal foreign entanglements, which would lead to much greater economic growth. It's not been exactly great for the US. The problem is that it creats even worse issues for the rest of the world, which is why I oppose it.
Compromise, I'll call them psychotic, bloodthirsty warmongers. That OK?
Fear is all there is.
I'm not even going to respond. You're worse than Trump with his lame “Ron DeSanctimonious”. If you want to try a tactic to boost Trump and undermine DeSantis, try to pick one that literally anyone who listens to the man wouldn't reject out of hand.