I mean, that is classic Trump braggadocio. You know his heart is in the right place. RDS had some good things to say but then unfortunately backtracked a bit because Liz Cheney wasn't happy.
Trump is no 4D chess master, but his political instincts are pretty good.
I think he doesn't just think that people think war is bad, but that he thinks war is bad. And war is popular, not unpopular. That's one of the reasons American presidents almost invaribly start wars.
I wouldn't argue that, because then we'd always just move more towards perdition. But then again, that is what conservatism has done. The only thing it conserves is the profits of Goldman Sachs and Raytheon.
All the anti-Trump criticisms are correct. But... is there someone better? And how do you account for Trump not supporting the GOP nominee or running third party? Like him or not, he's the only choice.
Trump is a narcissist and constantly makes bombastic statements. Automatically assigning the best intent to them is an act of mind reading that I will not engage in.
RDS's policy on Ukraine was not backtracked to please Liz Cheney. That is an absurd statement. He basically clarified his verbiage on whether the conflict was a border skirmish. He merely clarified that he thinks Russia was in the wrong for invading Ukraine in his second statement.
People on our forum have certain views about the Ukraine conflict that the larger primary electorate which has many boomer cons don't share.
RDS was likely trying to clarify his stance for that reason.
Trump is a narcissist and constantly makes bombastic statements.
Yes.
Automatically assigning the best intent to them is an act of mind reading that I will not engage in.
Oh, you should never assign good intent to any politician. They are all bad. Still, I know that Trump is anti-neocon, while I think DeSantis is adjusting himself to being one. It's good that he is, don't get me wrong, but that can easily change when he is in office (while Trump can get rolled by his men like he was in his first term).
RDS's policy on Ukraine was not backtracked to please Liz Cheney. That is an absurd statement
It was half a joke. He backtracked a bit in response to criticism from the likes of Lindsey Graham. The problem is not just the substance, but that he looked weak in appearing to backtrack in response to criticism. What I like about him is that he punches anyone who attacks him, rather than surrendering.
He merely clarified that he thinks Russia was in the wrong for invading Ukraine in his second statement.
He also made childish statements like "Russia is a gas station", but to his credit, he made those as arguments for why Russia should not be regarded as a threat.
People on our forum have certain views about the Ukraine conflict that the larger primary electorate which has many boomer cons don't share.
Correct. But I think that he struck the exact right cord in his first statement. And people may have opinions, but foreign policy generally ranks very low on the list of priorities, so those of you who have opinions that are outside the mainstream of the blob should do your absolute best to voice your opinions, as I know you do.
I mean, that is classic Trump braggadocio. You know his heart is in the right place. RDS had some good things to say but then unfortunately backtracked a bit because Liz Cheney wasn't happy.
Every high stakes Trump foreign policy move was a smashing success. I believe him.
Exactly.
Trump is no 4D chess master, but his political instincts are pretty good.
I think he doesn't just think that people think war is bad, but that he thinks war is bad. And war is popular, not unpopular. That's one of the reasons American presidents almost invaribly start wars.
I wouldn't argue that, because then we'd always just move more towards perdition. But then again, that is what conservatism has done. The only thing it conserves is the profits of Goldman Sachs and Raytheon.
All the anti-Trump criticisms are correct. But... is there someone better? And how do you account for Trump not supporting the GOP nominee or running third party? Like him or not, he's the only choice.
Trump is a narcissist and constantly makes bombastic statements. Automatically assigning the best intent to them is an act of mind reading that I will not engage in.
RDS's policy on Ukraine was not backtracked to please Liz Cheney. That is an absurd statement. He basically clarified his verbiage on whether the conflict was a border skirmish. He merely clarified that he thinks Russia was in the wrong for invading Ukraine in his second statement.
People on our forum have certain views about the Ukraine conflict that the larger primary electorate which has many boomer cons don't share.
RDS was likely trying to clarify his stance for that reason.
Yes.
Oh, you should never assign good intent to any politician. They are all bad. Still, I know that Trump is anti-neocon, while I think DeSantis is adjusting himself to being one. It's good that he is, don't get me wrong, but that can easily change when he is in office (while Trump can get rolled by his men like he was in his first term).
It was half a joke. He backtracked a bit in response to criticism from the likes of Lindsey Graham. The problem is not just the substance, but that he looked weak in appearing to backtrack in response to criticism. What I like about him is that he punches anyone who attacks him, rather than surrendering.
He also made childish statements like "Russia is a gas station", but to his credit, he made those as arguments for why Russia should not be regarded as a threat.
Correct. But I think that he struck the exact right cord in his first statement. And people may have opinions, but foreign policy generally ranks very low on the list of priorities, so those of you who have opinions that are outside the mainstream of the blob should do your absolute best to voice your opinions, as I know you do.