Nice flower box. Most of my Geraniums are looking very good.
Wonder what will happen to the Wagner group now? Are those in Africia on their own? And those in Belarus?
Did not watch the “debates”. Never do. Don’t mean much. Instead enjoyed a shot of a very good Single Malt.
I donated again to Vivek. I’ve never donated to any POTUS candidate before.
I would ask what peeps thought of the debate, but don’t really think too much of the common sense of anyone who watched…
LMAO.
No, not actually giving anyone shit for doing so, but at this point, it seems truly pointless to even be considering the candidates. In my experience — now running to >40y — the ones who flame out before the primaries is legion.
well hutchinson and christie removed all doubt,
I donated the same amount to Neo. So, no hard feelings.
Watching political speeches or political debates ranks as more worthwhile than only one other activity for me — watching a Congressional hearing. Nothing is more worthless than listening to people in congress “respond” to someone else reading a boring statement.
Didn’t watch last night. I had to cut my toenails.
One thing that people need to know and appreciate about Vivek is his background. He raised millions from private investors to start his company. And then every quarter he answered questions from the Street. There are also biotech conferences where he presented.
Biotech is a very tough game and the Street is rightly skeptical. Vivek won that game, got 5 drugs to markets where Big Pharma had failed and he made millions.
A political debate is easy for him. That’s why he is so confident.
We are at a crossroads. We are in deep trouble. We need a man with his abilities to save the country. Not some old guy who wants to get revenge.
As I’m posting this the Tucker/Trump interview is at 189 million views, which even if you interpret that in a way that a large portion of those views are likely merely haters and rubber neckers or even bots, it’s probably safe to say that far more eyeballs have viewed that than the Fox News Channel debate last night. This is especially true since according to Glenn Beck this morning, Fox hasn’t yet realesed any clips for general wider media consumption for whatever reason, which I guess is fairly unprecedented. Make of that what you will,
I mean, at this point I think the RNC should seriously consider moving future debates to Twitter/X.
I’m not all that interested in Trump getting revenge. I am, however, obsessed with the country getting justice and stopping Big Brother and the evil being wreaked by Democrats.
Electing Trump would be a baseball bat to the face of a lot of people who desperately need a baseball bat to the face. And because he has a track record in the job, I know what to expect in terms of governance — unprecedented success in foreign policy and economic policy. Literally, the best first three years of any presidential term. That kinda sorta matters. I’m confident that next time he won’t make the mistake of relying on the “expertise” of dishonest, corrupt bureaucrats like Birx and Fauci should the world unleash another threat.
I’ll vote for the GOP nominee. I’m aware of Trump’s shortcomings. I didn’t vote for him in the 2016 primary. But for any of the Lilliputians on the stage last night to beat him for the nomination, they are going to have to find a way to convince people that they are LIKELY to be better than Trump was in his first three years. That will be difficult. Very, very difficult. Hopes and promises ain’t performance.
I agree with MrsX on the debate thread; hard to believe we all watched the same thing. 🙂 (Actually, that’s good. It shows that we all don’t think with one mind, have different interests and respond to different presentations/incentives.)
I also agree with those who say this is way too early to be paying attention to the race, unless one does politics for a career or is in one of the early voting primary states, but I watched anyway. Mainly because my spouse loves debates. It was more interesting than I expected.
I thought DeSantis would do poorly, come across as a bully. He did better than I expected. I also expected the others to come at him hard, since he’s polling the best of who was on the stage, but they mostly left him alone. I don’t think he lost ground last night and might have moved up a bit.
Haley came across very well. She is telegenic and comes across as trustworthy, knowledgeable and in control. She may have moved up a bit also. She drew some hard lines regarding Trump, however, and the Ever Trumpers will be coming at her. She certainly lost ground with them.
Vivek seemed to have brought the most loyalists to the event. He had many vocal supporters in the crowd. I haven’t seen data, but he almost certainly was attacked the most. Christie went at him hard, and often. Haley did too. I think Pence did also. Vivek’s performance was a bit uneven, but he also was getting hit from many sides. Overall I think he did well and will likely gain some ground from getting his name, voice and visage on the airwaves in a major event.
Scott came across well. I hadn’t seen him much prior to this and I was impressed by his openness. Expected him to be more politiciany. I don’t think he did himself any harm and may have improved his support. Comes across as very genuine.
Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson were the big losers. Both just awful. It seems they’re assuming the Evangelical vote will carry them? The Dems have to be thrilled that Pence is in the race.
Burgum. I see a lot of people speaking positively of him post debate. I agree. He came across well. I’ve also seen people digging more into his record now that they know of him and not liking what they are finding, but he fared well last night.
Trump. Trump’s supporters have a lot to dislike about the debate. A few candidates came out hard against him, all (more on this later) stated they thought Pence did the right thing by certifying the last election. Trump’s support probably goes up after the debate (more on this later).
MacCallum, Baier and Fox. They did a lot of harm to the GOP. Seemed focused on contentious issues, loyalty pledges, theatrics (national anthem was odd, drone was goofy, video questions and footage to elicit emotion). It’s a dumb format having television presenters ask questions; especially with so many on stage and no real time to say anything meaningful or refute or actually debate. I loved how DeSantis handled the request for a “show of hands.” That was brilliant! Hopefully it puts an end to all such future spectacles. Although, about 30 minutes later they were asked to do the same to acknowledge Pence did the right thing. Debates shouldn’t be about a television network or host trying to increase their ratings or popularity through gimmicks or gotcha’s. It’s a disservice to us, the voters. There was a lot there to confirm Ever Trumpers worst fears; Fox is in bed with the Dems… Haley, Christie, DeSantis, Pence, Hutchinson… are all secret deep staters out to stop Trump…
However, for people hoping for an option other than Trump or Biden, there were some positive signs of hope.
Not the dumpster fire I expected. More of a fire in a small, office trashbin that is easily extinguished with a nearby cup of coffee.
I’d just be happy if someone could convince me that Trump could actually win in the general.
stan,
“Hopes and promises ain’t performance.”
Five of the people on last night’s stage; Hutchinson, Haley, Christie, DeSantis and Burgum are/were governors, leading the Executive branch of their respective states. Some of those states have economies that would place them among the largest nations of the world.
They all have performance to laud or criticize. No “hopes or promises” required.
There’s now talk that Trump can be denied the presidency by the 14th Amendment. This could be used to keep him off the ballot in some states. I don’t see that happening, but it’s more likely that debate about measures to keep Trump off the ballot will contribute to the stream of propaganda against him. The Atlantic has an article by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe supporting the idea. It refers to research done by two professors with Federalist Society associations, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas.
Also, Pete Buttigieg calls for a Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine. The man is tone deaf and lives in a fantasy world. The war is far from won, and we aren’t what we were in Marshall’s and Truman’s day.
Nonapod,
Regarding the viewership for the Trump/Carlson interview: I assume Twitter/X gets a lot more worldwide exposure than FoxNews channel. I would guess a large percentage of the interview viewers are non-US citizens.
But yeah, the GOP should allow Twitter/X and Rumble to cover the debates live.
Rufus, sorry. I don’t see being governor of a red state as being remotely like what Trump had to handle in the White House. Still all about hopes and promises.
It’s the difference between projecting and HOPING vs. actual on the job experience.
“One of these things is not like the other….”
That the GOP outsources debates to the mainstream media, allowing their premises to frame the discussion, tells me that they are not serious about change or meaningful opposition to the Left.
@Rufus:leading the Executive branch of their respective states.
Which shows they can competently run the executive branches of their home states, where they are on friendly ground and have a full Rolodex of people to turn to get things done. It doesn’t say anything about how they will do in Washington D.C., in a hostile Deep State swamp where they can’t count on their networks to help them.
It is interesting how actual performance, on the job, gets turned into something akin to ‘he had no opposition to any of his decisions’ and ‘his actions were of no consequence’ because the White House is different.
Yep the national Media and the Mouse Corporation are all in favor of certain governor, for example. He and other governors had no hard decisions.
A person’s past performance matters not, it seems.
No one except a President or ex President is qualified?
With the exceptions of DeSantis and Vivek, everybody on the stage last night was completely irrelevant. They represent a party that no longer exists. They are the reason that Trump won the election in 2016 and they have learned nothing.
Vivek doesn’t have a chance of being elected President but he is the only one who really understands the moment we’re in and has the courage to stand up against the Republican establishment. He has a future.
DeSantis doesn’t really know what he stands for. There is a big part of him that agrees with Trump and the MAGA movement but he has been persuaded by establishment donors and advisors that his moment is now and he can win by being the Trump alternative. Unfortunately DeSantis is charisma challenged and indecisive. Those hoping that this debate would provide DeSantis with some momentum will be disappointed. The enduring DeSantis image from this debate will be of him nervously checking around before raising his hand in saying he would support Trump even if he was convicted.
I would have liked to see Trump at the debate simply for entertainment value but no rational political advisor would have told him to attend that farce.
om,
“No one except a President or ex President is qualified?”
Hilarious!
Of course, their very argument disqualifies Trump from running in 2016, but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Gregory Harper,
“Unfortunately DeSantis is charisma challenged and indecisive.”
I don’t see how anyone looking at DeSantis’ resume or record as Governor of Florida can label him indecisive. If anything, the guy’s over aggression and opinionated nature are negatives. Even Trump calls him, “DeSanctimonious.”
Ever Trumpers in 2023: being a successful, re-elected Governor of a state like Florida, New Jersey, South Carolina, Arkansas or North Dakota has no correlation to the U.S. Presidency and performance in such a role should be completely discounted when casting one’s vote.
Ever Trumpers in 2015: a draft dodging, twice divorced, philandering business developer who has filed for bankruptcy four times and never held any public office has demonstrated the necessary skills to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces and lead the Executive branch of the U.S.
Wow, the stupid here is off the charts. I expect it from Om. What is the excuse for the rest of you? Y’all aren’t normally this stupid. Motivated reasoning much?
This is really pathetic.
Misstating my statement in order to attack a straw man is beneath you. I expect an apology. Not from Om. He’s incapable. But the rest of you are better than this.
Go back and try reading comprehension this time. Then find some shred of morality and realize that you let your asshole take control. Get it back under control. Try harder. And reject the stupid.
Don’t make me come back here and rip y’all some new ones for gross stupidity.
Rufus T. Firefly:
“I don’t see how anyone looking at DeSantis’ resume or record as Governor of Florida can label him indecisive. If anything, the guy’s over aggression and opinionated nature are negatives. Even Trump calls him, “DeSanctimonious.””
I think DeSantis has been a very good governor and has made good decisions. But as a presidential candidate, I still don’t know what his stance is on the Ukraine war. He seems to want to have it both ways. It doesn’t seem to be a priority for him but he still seems to support more aid. But I’m not sure.
On the issue of election integrity, he acknowledges that the 2020 election had flaws but also says that the claims of fraud have not been substantiated. He is unwilling to say the election was stolen.
He has been critical of the Trump indictments but his criticism has been nuanced. He has not come out nearly strong enough on the unconstitutional nature of the charges against Trump.
DeSantis has a very good record as governor but as a candidate he doesn’t seem to know exactly what he stands for or why people should vote for him and not someone else. He simply can not make the sale to voters, which is why his polling numbers have declined and he has had to make multiple adjustments to his staff and the focus of his message.
@Rufus:Ever Trumpers in 2023… Ever Trumpers in 2015
If there are any comments here you are characterizing this way, then what you wrote is pretty dishonest and I’m surprised to see you stoop to it.
The whole point of Trump’s appeal to Ever Trumpers in 2015 was that he was NOT qualified according to what the Establishment considers “qualified”. If they thought, in 2023, that he had now become “qualified” in that way, they’d be talking about how he was co-opted by the Swamp.
You know better than this.
To Ever Trumpers the whole point of Trump is that the Establishment hates him and does not want to do anything Trump wants done. The whole point is that he does not have a network of unelected clients and patrons who get to wet their beaks in everything and frustrate the will of the people who voted for him.
Ever Trumpers are not looking for “qualified”. They’re looking for a Tribune of the Plebs to start flipping tables and busting things up. I don’t say this is 100% reasonable or that I agree with it 100%.
My own perspective is that a “qualified” Republican is probably vulnerable to being co-opted by the Swamp in direct proportion to how well they are “qualified.” When I say DeSantis lacks a “qualification” that is praise from me.
Ever Trumpers in 2015: a draft dodging, twice divorced, philandering business developer who has filed for bankruptcy four times and never held any public office has demonstrated the necessary skills to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces and lead the Executive branch of the U.S.
==
He didn’t dodge the draft. He was awarded a 2-S deferment in 1964, renewed periodically; it expired in 1968. About 1/4 of the cohorts in question were awardd such a deferment at that time and it was modal during the period running from 1948 to 1965 for college bound youth to attend school first and then enter the military after graduation. He then had an unremarkable I-Y disqualification. About 12% of the birth cohorts in question were awarded these disqualifications at that time. He could have been recalled for another physical in as little as 90 days. As it happens, he was not, because the military’s recruitment goals did not require quick recalls of those who had been awarded contingent medical disqualifications. At the end of 1969, the draft lottery was instituted. His lottery number was high enough that he was not during calendar year 1970 summoned for a physical. He was excused from conscription after that, along with every other man in the United States born prior to 1951. His brother also drew a high lottery number. You’d only say he ‘dodged the draft’ if he did something sketchy to avoid military service, like persuaded an influential to intercede for him, or starved himself before his medical examination, or executed a series of maneuvers to shirk his ROTC service obligations, or hired a lawyer to press a bogus claim for conscientious objector status. (It’s a reasonable wager that Mitch McConnell’s abrupt medical discharge in 1968 was wangled by his former employer; James Fallowes had admitted publicly that he failed his induction physical by crash dieting; Bill Clinton snookered the Army in re ROTC; and Bernie Sanders had a bogus CO claim).
==
And, note, neither Donald Trump nor the Trump Organization ever filed for bankruptcy. The Trump Organization was an investor in projects in Atlantic City which filed for re-organization four times before he finally gave up on them.
Gregory Harper wrote – “With the exceptions of DeSantis and Vivek, everybody on the stage last night was completely irrelevant. They represent a party that no longer exists.”
It may no longer exist, but its remaining voters exist and they are increasingly refusing to vote for Trump and similar candidates. Hence, Trump and other MAGA candidates’ spectacular failures in general elections over the past three cycles.
What Trumpers fail to grasp is that MAGA is not a majority, not even close. You need a coalition with that party that “no longer exists.” You can’t, for example, swear off John McCain voters because you can’t win without them.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s arithmetic. I’m flabbergasted that Trumpers still haven’t figured this out after 2018, 2020, and 2022.
@ stan
“…find a way to convince people that they are LIKELY to be better than Trump was in his first three years. That will be difficult. Very, very difficult. Hopes and promises ain’t performance.”
• 100% agree.
• Folks far more knowledgeable than me have written about the differences between a State and National executive office – and going from a State executive office (Governor) to the National executive office (President) is definitely not a ‘Lift & Shift’ move.
• You say “hopes and promises”, I say potential – and it is fair to point out that none of last night’s debate participants have actually done the job – US President – i.e., ” performance”.
#####
• I’ll add that for much of my life I have preferred candidates that had State executive experience over those with just US Congress experience.
• Still, as I progressed in my career it became very clear to me that the best executive talent is not necessarily in government (and “not necessarily” is me being polite).
• Trump was the first President that did not have a political or military background – and I hope we see more of that.
@Bauxite: You can’t, for example, swear off John McCain voters because you can’t win without them.
Obamacare forever. Debt ceiling increases forever. “Winning” has to mean something other than putting red hogs at the trough instead of blue.
The GOP has spent at least thirty years trading full loaves for quarter loaves and then smugly telling us that “half a loaf is better than none” and “what are you going to do, vote for the Democrats”? Too many people have woken up.
Gregory Harper,
I agree with your opinion of DeSantis regarding U.S. involvement in Ukraine. To me it looks like he’s avoiding giving a firm answer because he likely is on the side of providing financial aid (and, perhaps equipment) to Ukraine but knows the Tucker Carlson wing of the party is opposed, so he tries to avoid taking a firm stance. I don’t think he would equivocate as CinC.
Regarding election integrity, he seems to feel the same as me, (neo, I think) and many others here: the Dems did shenanigans. Trump and the GOP were not pro-active nor effective enough leading up to the campaign to counteract the DNC’s tactics and, at the end of the day, the Electors that the States send to DC elect the President. The Electors the states sent voted for Biden and the Vice President certified the election; ipso facto Joseph Biden was elected President. Going down a rabbit hole of minutiae is distracting, whiny and non-Presidential. Why, as a candidate, should DeSantis do that?
Regarding criticism of Trump’s indictments. I have heard DeSantis speak clearly and decisively in opposition to what is being done. I think I have even heard him say he would pardon Trump if he is convicted. But, again, assuming DeSantis is hoping to get elected President of the United States next year; why would he focus speaking time on a contentious issue that huge swaths of the nation disagree with him on? An issue involving the past that he currently has no control over? He can’t do anything, including pardon Trump, if he’s not elected. And, as vicious as Trump has been attacking DeSantis, why should DeSantis go out of his way to risk political capital on Trump now?
On the death of Prigozhin— Peter Zeihan runs through the rogues gallery of assassin’s who could be responsible: Putin, military, the arms industry, Putin Rivals, Russian crime mafia — and there’s the list of international actors who would wish Ill upon him: Ukraine, Poland, Belo-Russia. And finally, we don’t even know that he’s dead. There were supposed to be 10 aboard the plane, yet only 8 bodies have been recovered!
I’m am strongly conservative. I am not a Republican, for a reason. I support Trump because the rest of the GOP field has no interest in opposing the ever-expanding government. Prove to me some other candidate will dismantle as much of the bureaucracy as possible and I will support them. Otherwise, we are just getting another four years of limp opposition that lets the left continue to run roughshod over our remaining freedoms.
Alan Colbo:
I don’t recall Trump dismantling the bureaucracy, and certainly not to any significant extent. I assume he’s now saying he will. But if so, then that merely puts him on a par with candidates such as Ramaswamy and DeSantis who say that, if elected, they will. They’ve each actually made that statement many times.
Frederick:
Do you actually think a half loaf isn’t better than none?
Do you think the perfect is the friend of the good?
Personally, I’d rather have red hogs at the trough than blue ones. Because in politics and government, there will always be a lot of hogs at the trough. Or perhaps you’ve found the secret to cloning Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith?
I watched. I was very unhappy with the way Fox produced the show. Obviously mean to goose ratings and start intramural fighting.
The format was not good and the time limits on each speaker were not enforced. The time limits also weren’t adequate. One minuet to explain your position on an issue in detail? Please.
I thought DeSantis did a credible job, but it’s hard to stand out in a format like that.
Vivek was the target of the establishment politicians, and he weathered the incoming rather well. I’m still impressed by his ability to think on his feet and not be cowed by criticism.
Nikki Haley had a good moment on abortion. One that the Republicans in general should pay attention to, IMO.
“But as for a federal ban, Haley said politicians “need to be honest with the American people and say it will take 60 Senate votes, it will take a majority of the House.”
“So, in order to do that, let’s find consensus,” she said. “Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortion shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we all agree that contraception should be available? And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”
Makes sense to me.
At least you get some impression about each candidate, but until DJT shows up, the picture will be incomplete and hard to judge.
Rufus: “MacCallum, Baier and Fox. They did a lot of harm to the GOP.”
Yes!!!
Dave supports Vivek: Ramaswamy became a complete “no way” for me with that Taiwan comment a week and a half ago on the Hugh Hewitt show https://hughhewitt.com/vivek-ramaswamy-on-all-things-national-security (emphasis added):
Well, Hugh, I’m running to be the next president, and so I expect to be the president inaugurated on January 20th, 2025. So I’m wearing that hat when I’m choosing my words very carefully right now. And I’m being very clear: Xi Jinping should not mess with Taiwan until we have achieved semiconductor independence, until the end of my first term when I will lead us there. And after that, our commitments to Taiwan, our commitments to be willing to go to military conflict, will change after that, because that’s rationally in our self-interest. That is honest. That is true. And that is credible.
It’s just that type of comment from Biden about a potential invasion of Ukraine (“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do”) that practically invited Russia to invade Ukraine. And, Vivek made it clear that there is no room for misunderstanding him–as far as he’s concerned our relationships with allies should be purely what’s supposedly best for us at an instantaneous moment. G-d forbid everyone feels like that about their family and friends.
On foreign policy, if my recollection of last night’s debate is correct, Pence and Haley got it right.
@ Bauxite
“Hence, Trump and other MAGA candidates’ spectacular failures in general elections over the past three cycles. This isn’t rocket science. It’s arithmetic. I’m flabbergasted that Trumpers still haven’t figured this out after 2018, 2020, and 2022.”
A) 2018 Election
• In the last 20 mid-term elections, the party in the WH has lost seats in the House 20 times (100%).
• 6 Presidents have seen more House seats lost than Trump: -40 (Obama: -63, Clinton: -52, Ford: -48, LBJ: -47, Eisenhower: -48, Truman: -45).
• In the last 20 mid-term elections, the party in the WH has lost seats in the Senate 13 times (65%).
• Only 6 Presidents – including Trump: +2 – have seen seats gained in the Senate (Biden: +1, GWB: +2, Regan: +1, Nixon: +2, JFK: +3).
B) 2020 Election
• Trump had 74,223, 975 – undisputed votes – which was 17.84% more votes than he received in 2016.
• It was the most votes ever received by a Republican candidate (Reagan, GWB, Bush, Nixon, etc.).
• It was also 19.64% more votes than the next highest Republican candidate – 2004: GWB.
C) 2022 Election
• Another mid-term election that followed historical precedents in the House – but not Senate.
• After the SC decision in June, abortion was a significant issue – maybe THE issue, for many citizens.
• More Trump endorsed candidates won their election than lost their election.
• “Trump’s endorsees won 216 of the 257 called races held on Nov. 8 (84%).” — Ballotpedia
I think all the other candidates should be clear on the question of if they would pardon Trump or not. I’m of the opinion that pardoning Trump should be an absolute no brainer for any potential future Republican president given the Deep State’s vile lawfare. You don’t have to love Trump to utterly deplore the insane lawlessness of the current regime regarding their treatment of him.
stan:
If you’re going to address people about being misinterpreted or misjudged, you’d be far more effective to avoid words like “asshole”. I don’t have time to check every comment on this thread, but I also suggest to you that if you think someone has wronged you, don’t yell at some nameless group, but name the person you’re addressing and even put in the time of their comment, so that other people can find it and follow what you’re actually complaining about.
I also suggest that perhaps if Trump had been a governor, he might have known more people in government who would be on his side and wouldn’t have appointed so many back-stabbers.
Frederick @ 1:24pm,
You yourself have previously written to the effect that; if DeSantis becomes the nominee the Establishment will come after him, or any other Republican, just as hard as they did at Trump. And Bush. And Bush. And Reagan…
I don’t know if DeSantis or Haley or Ramaswamy can battle the media and entrenched state any better than Trump, but I do know the media and entrenched state were able to stymie Trump and undo much of what he did.
“The whole point is that he does not have a network of unelected clients and patrons who get to wet their beaks in everything and frustrate the will of the people who voted for him.”
Maybe it’s not a bad idea to have a network of like minded supporters already in positions to help, to assist with a POTUS’ attempt at enacting the will of the people. Trump did a terrible job of picking and retaining staff, even extremely key staff.
Remember what happened to the last guy who flipped tables? Are we electing a martyr or a President?
Art Deco,
Trump certainly didn’t volunteer for military service, did he? We can split hairs over the definition of the word, “dodged,” but I’m suspect of anyone campaigning for the job of CinC who did not serve. However, unlike me, most Americans have moved on from thinking that should be a consideration. It’s like electing an Attorney General or Supreme Court justice who didn’t study law, or pass the Bar. Yeah, it’s not a legal requirement, but odd that it wouldn’t be of interest to the job applicant.
Regarding the bankruptcies; so, what you’re saying is, just like Hunter Biden, or Sam Bankman Fried, Trump was smart enough to have enough shell entities to shield his personal wealth from his business dealings?
@neo:Do you actually think a half loaf isn’t better than none?
“The GOP has spent at least thirty years trading full loaves for quarter loaves and then smugly telling us that “half a loaf is better than none”
The last debt ceiling raise is a perfect example. We’re now at 120% debt to GDP ratio. The GOP House had to do absolutely nothing to win that, and they chose to give that away.
Rufus T. Firefly; Frederick:
Last night DeSantis had a very good moment when he called out the moderators for asking a stupid yes or no question where the candidates were required to raise their hands (I can’t find a transcript, but I think it had something to do with January 6th and was a real gotcha type thing). It showed that he has the guts to challenge the press – and to go “process” rather than always sticking with content. He’s done that a lot as governor when dealing with the press and with attacks on him – and he’s had plenty of such attacks.
Frederick:
Full loaves? I beg to differ there. A sure thing was traded away? Absolutely not.
I repeat: do you not think half a loaf is better than none?
Also, you may not have noticed, but I’ve put up a new post on some of these issues. See this.
Regarding the debt ceiling fight, surely you are aware of the arguments about what would happen if it weren’t raised. You may think those arguments are garbage, but they certainly exist and I believe they hold some weight.
I’m sure DeSantis would be a fine President if a Republican President could be elected in 2024. But the Republican Party has done nothing, despite whatever intentions or efforts, to change the reality of how the elections will work in the swing states, and are not willing to use other levers that they have, and so this is not going to happen in 2024. And we can make all the excuses for them and cite all the platitudes we wish, and every day our capability to resist diminishes.
Frederick:
Swing states are states where Republicans don’t have control. I’ve chronicled several attempts made by Republicans in those states to change things for the better, and they are often stopped by the courts or by a Democrat governor’s veto. You need to be specific about exactly what could have been realistically accomplished by the GOP in exactly what state or states and was not tried.
@neo:You need to be specific about exactly what could have been realistically accomplished by the GOP in exactly what state or states and was not tried.
My being specific does not change the fact, that the things have not been done, and that until the things have been done, the 2024 Presidential election is unwinnable for a Republican. No amount of talk changes that the things are not done that would need to be done.
The only thing my being specific can do, is provide cover for not holding the GOP accountable for the situation, because a motivated person can find any number of reasons why they couldn’t or shouldn’t have attempted to do those enumerated things, I don’t doubt. But failing to hold Republicans accountable for not doing things does not change the reality that the things were not done.
Failing to hold them accountable does, however, allow grifters to continue to grift until the banana republic is here forever. It won’t inconvenience them a bit; they can still make money under one-party rule. China’s eight minority political parties have a pretty sweet gig too.
You did eventually acknowledge that Dem-style lawfare could be practiced by Republicans, and you do know that blue counties in red states with red governors can somehow indict and convict Republican politicians, so it’s not like Republicans have to control every branch before they can do anything significant. There’s no reason why Republicans can’t fight back with the strengths they have in the areas they control. The debt ceiling was another, those hundreds of billions could have extracted a lot of concessions, but it was just given up, and it’s been done over and over. Mitch McConnell nuked a Republican filibuster to give up the debt ceiling fight the time before that.
The more the grifters give up to keep the grift going, the less we have to fight with.
And if you want to make the case that the voters will never accept real conservatives in place of the RINOs, then relax, your banana republic is going to happen by majority demand, and there’s nothing to be done.
Frederick:
You fail to get the point or to address the point I was making. I would dearly love for “things to be done” to fix the election rules and make elections more secure. I don’t think there’s a person here who doesn’t agree with that, as well as with the fact that such things have not been done very often (actually, DeSantis did them in Florida but he had a Republican legislature – although that’s not necessarily a guarantee that such things will be done). You accused the GOP of doing nothing that has changed the situation and you wrote “we can make all the excuses for them and cite all the platitudes we wish.” But why criticize people for not changing something when they tried and failed due to circumstances they could not control? That’s not making an excuse, it’s facing reality. If you can’t cite an instance where they failed to try to change something that could have realistically been changed by such efforts, what’s your beef with them about that issue? That they can’t wave a magic wand?
In addition, I never have acknowledged that Democratic-style lawfare should – or even in many cases could – be accomplished by Republicans. I have always been in favor of bona fide legal challenges by Republicans and have written about that many times and chronicled their history. What I said about lawfare recently was that the type of lawfare that Democrats practice – twisting the law and using it in shady ways that are blatantly unfair and political – would be hard for Republicans to do for a host of reasons, which I listed. I have not wavered from that position. I asked people to suggest some lawsuits that Republicans could file that might work and don’t involve straining and twisting the law out of shape, and a couple such lawsuits were mentioned. It was THOSE with which I agree and of which I approve. So there was no change in my attitude, not before and not now.
@neo:You accused the GOP of doing nothing that has changed the situation
Neo, this is not my “accusation”, this is the fact and you even acknowledged it:
“I’ve chronicled several attempts made by Republicans in those states to change things for the better, and they are often stopped by the courts or by a Democrat governor’s veto.”
It has not changed, YOU said it. I’m sure you can recount a longer list of things that were tried and did not succeed.
The only difference between where you are coming from and where I am coming from is that it does not matter to me that they tried really hard (assuming that they did). Because trying really hard and failing leaves the 2024 election unwinnable, no matter how hard they tried or how excusable that they failed.
what’s your beef with them about that issue? That they can’t wave a magic wand?
Every time I raise something, you just give a reason why that doesn’t count and then demand I give another, and if I don’t you say I’m expecting a magic wand. The biggest GOP failures to use the power they have would be the last two debt ceiling increases. You have your reasons for why you don’t think they have any blame there. Okay.
But I’m not asking for a magic wand. The House right now can “veto” all legislation and spending by refusing to pass anything, that “veto” cannot be overturned, and it doesn’t use that power to effect real change. That’s a huge weapon and it is lying unused. And you have your reasons why that shouldn’t count. Okay.
They can’t change state election laws with that power, or rein in county District Attorneys, but there is a hell of a lot they could do, and don’t, because they gave up the leverage already. They needed more to see their cronies get paid than to do anything to rein the rest of the Federal Government. And you have your reasons why they shouldn’t be blamed. Okay. Excuse them all you wish.
Meanwhile, the winning Democrats shape the political world to their liking. Because THEY are willing to USE what THEY have. Because they will give up some grift to get power.
Neo versus Alan Colbo. Neo begins “I don’t recall Trump dismantling the bureaucracy, and certainly not to any significant extent.
Let the debate begin! I’ll begin by summarising a study testing that very question, empirically (Summer 2020), for the first two years of his term. It begins by acknowledging that Trump’s big promises to make big reductions in the regulatory bureaucracy. But did he deliver? Yes. (Albeit the study’s authors demure: see ADDENDUM.)
THE DETAILS: The key act was the Executive Order 13771 signed into law in January 30, 2017, requiring bureaucrats to eliminate two rules before a new on is advanced, and “The cost of the implementation of these new regulations was supposed to be less than or equal to 0 dollars.” (As key rebuke to Trumpism, Joe Biden rescinded the Order on January 20, 2021 — the very day of his inauguration.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13771
“Finding 1: The flow of new regulations was much smaller than under the previous two administrations.
“The pace of issuing new regulations under President Trump has slowed considerably compared to recent presidential administrations. Table 1 [SEE ORIGINAL, BELOW] reports the number of new regulations issued in the first 24 months of the Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush presidencies. As the table shows, the total number of final regulations issued under Trump is approximately 40% smaller than the number issued under Bush or Obama. The number of significant regulations under Trump is almost 50% smaller than the number issued under Bush and Obama. For major rules (i.e., the most economically significant rules), the counts under both Trump and Bush are substantially smaller than under Obama….
“Why is the flow of new regulations so small under Trump? His administration did propose large cuts in the budgets of regulatory agencies, though Congress largely failed to adopt them even when it was controlled by Republicans. Therefore, we believe the most important factor may be the appointments President Trump made to the federal regulatory agencies because they appear to have been made with a preference for deregulation.”
There are five more findings discussed in the study, some discussing improvements upon Trump’s performance of reducing regulation burden by roughly 50%.
I think Neo is mistaken here, and Alan’s impression is shown to be correct. Trump dramatically reduced the regulatory bureaucrat arms through which needless, burdensome costs are foisted on our citizens.
ADDENDUM My interpretation should be admitted to be MY READING of their data. The authorS above disagree (and if you know Cato Institute, you’ll know why) with me! Their title reads “ Deregulation Under Trump;
Despite claims of broad deregulation, the administration’s hallmark has been little regulatory activity.” In other words, the authors further findings indicate that Trump deregulation was NOT RADICAL ENOUGH!
The conclusion spends one paragraph in praise of Trump, while the second and final paragraph is critical, quoting, “However, Trump’s effectiveness as a deregulator has been hampered by a lack of political appointees in key regulatory agencies and a skeptical judicial branch dominated by judges appointed under Democratic administrations. The president could improve his effectiveness as a deregulator by filling key administrative positions that are now vacant or held by “acting” appointees, paying greater attention to the administrative process for revising existing regulations, and developing better metrics for deregulation.”
Thus, he did historically good on the issue, but there’s further improvement needed on the deregulation front.
Is this what is happening, what am I missing?
Trump going to jail for agreeing with Biden? Joe Biden: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” (Nov. 5, 2020)
The definition of “dismantle” is to disassemble and take apart into pieces. That is what I’m talking about, that Trump didn’t do and yet it’s what both Ramaswamy and DeSantis are promising (maybe others are also promising, but I’m not aware of it).
I never said that Trump did nothing to reduce the regulatory burden. I have no idea why you would interpret my remarks that way. Alan Colbo had written “Prove to me some other candidate will dismantle as much of the bureaucracy as possible and I will support them.” I said “dismantle” as well, and that’s what I meant.
Trump certainly didn’t volunteer for military service, did he?
==
If that was your complaint, you’d have made that complaint. But then you’d have had to subscribe to the argument that candidates for public office are obligated to have volunteered for military service. That would disqualify every Republican presidential candidate of note in the last generation bar John McCain, George Bush the Younger, Steve Forbes, Robert Dole, and George Bush the Elder. And, of course, partisan Democrats would complain that Bush the Younger and Forbes enlisted in the National Guard and not the regular armed services and did so when the alternative was accepting conscription. (It would also disqualify every Democrat bar Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, and Bob Kerrey; everyone knows Gore’s enlistment was an abbreviated public relations exercise and Kerry, like most, was acting in a context where conscription was the alternative).
== We can split hairs over the definition of the word, “dodged,”
==
I’m not splitting hairs. You and others are misleading people. He followed the law and was disqualified according to a standing procedure. Over 100,000 such disqualifications were handed out every year.
== but I’m suspect of anyone campaigning for the job of CinC who did not serve.
==
You’re suspect [sic.] of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, and Pat Buchanan. How about Ronald Reagan? He was given a soft posting in southern California making army training films. Ron Paul joined the Air National Guard just before he was due for conscription and spent six years doing flight physicals p/t.
== It’s like electing an Attorney General or Supreme Court justice who didn’t study law, or pass the Bar. Yeah, it’s not a legal requirement, but odd that it wouldn’t be of interest to the job applicant.
==
FDR never served in the military and Abraham Lincoln’s service was limited to some militia duty. The Attorney-General is a law job. Supervising the military is an aspect of the President’s job.
== Regarding the bankruptcies; so, what you’re saying is, just like Hunter Biden, or Sam Bankman Fried, Trump was smart enough to have enough shell entities to shield his personal wealth from his business dealings?
==
No, you’re saying that and misleading people again. Trump did not do anything criminal or crooked. It was a business venture which did not succeed. And when you’ve learned what is meant by the term ‘shareholder’, get back to me.
Frederick – Perfect is not on offer. The choice is between compromise and Joe Biden.
And your 1-2 doesn’t make any sense either. As soon as anyone argues that the MAGA candidate can’t win, you insist that no Republican can win. If no Republican can win anyway, let the non-MAGA Rebublicans have the nomination and give it a try. By your won reasoning, it won’t make a difference.
Hopes and promises ain’t performance.
–stan
One thing leads to another….
_______________________________
Wishin’ and hopin’ and thinkin’ and prayin’
Plannin’ and dreamin’ each night of his charms
That won’t get you into his arms
So if you’re lookin’ to find love you can share
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and love him
And show him that you care
I’ve never watched Springfield perform. I was somewhat disconcerted by her mannikin mannerisms — a little too “uncanny valley.”
But hey, it’s Dusty. What a voice. I loved her as a kid. Still do. And it’s a Burt Bacharach song.
Talent was everywhere those days.
I wonder how the lyrics might apply to politics. I could do without the hugging and kissing, but I would like my candidates to care.
Frederick:
You write, “Neo, this is not my ‘accusation’, this is the fact and you even acknowledged it.”
Indeed I did. I never said your accusation wasn’t a fact – what an odd thought, that an accusation can’t be a fact. Accusations are very commonly facts. It is only false accusations that are not facts.
We were mainly discussing lawfare efforts, and that has been the focus of my comments to you. You had written, “the Republican Party has done nothing, despite whatever intentions or efforts, to change the reality of how the elections will work in the swing states.” That was the reason I asked you to give examples of where and how they might have changed that. You have not given an example, but then you brought up the debt ceiling, and I pointed out that doing what you suggest could have even worse consequences than not doing it. We can certainly disagree on that. Now you are saying that the “House right now can ‘veto’ all legislation and spending by refusing to pass anything.” No spending, ye olde “government shutdown” – what percentage of the population would support that? If the GOP did that, they’d lose Congress in addition to the presidency.
Saved file.
And bookmarked.
Just as MTG did (photoshopping her mugshot pic in support), I am with Trump too. THIS FIGHT CAN BE WON!
TJ:
Are you really trying to say that looking at Trump’s mugshot is evidence of support for him? While I have no doubt that many people looking at it do indeed support him – and I expect them to wear the image on T-shirts and the like – there are also plenty of people loving to look at his mugshot who hate his guts and would be only too happy to see him in prison or even dead. They are in jubilation.
Neo. “The definition of “dismantle” is to disassemble and take apart into pieces. That is what I’m talking about, that Trump didn’t do….” Come now. Surely you know the Uniparty wing of the Rs, including the powerful US Chamber of Commerce, and the taxpayer dollars sucked from Congress via increasingly DC-area corporate headquarters like Boeing, tell you whose goose is getting cooked by the other branch. Ours.
Of course. one can intend building an ultimate border barrier or a ‘deconstruction of the administrative state’ all you want, but if Congress does not approve it, it won’t happen like you hoped. Or like We hoped.
Once more: “I never said that Trump did nothing to reduce the regulatory burden. I have no idea why you would interpret my remarks that way.”
Oh, please. I offered an evidence based measure and I called it historically unprecedented. Do you dispute that?
Instead, you impose your binary choice of “not nothing” or incomplete “disassembly”, which you know isn’t how practical politics is done, and thus an unreasonable imposition on the facts in evidence.
Temporising on Trump’s deregulation? According to my citation, Trump explicitly “called for both a moratorium on new regulations and an explicit process of review and repeal of unnecessary regulations, which some advisers referred to as ‘deconstruction of the administrative state.’ Since entering office, he has frequently revisited those themes.”
And Trump did as he said. And the team pushed it as far as Capital Hill process allowed it to go. The gift of grift really is so great (Pace, Biden).
I recall that a review of Trump’s campaign promises by Law prof at Scalia School of Law, David Bernstein, found this libertarian pleasantly surprised by the very high numbers he kept. Underestimate Trump? I’ll say, do so at your own risk.
By the by, talking Bushites, has anyone heard any news from Sen. McConnell? He’s the ultimate compromising Uniparty leader… Health issues and replacement in the winds?
(PS THANKS for the sparring, partner!)
@neo:No spending, ye olde “government shutdown” – what percentage of the population would support that? If the GOP did that, they’d lose Congress in addition to the presidency.
You’re positing a very extreme line of action, and attributing it to me. Please don’t do that.
There’s a lot of ground the Republicans could explore between “rubberstamping the Dems” and “no spending of any kind and total shutdown”. Could be as simple targeting pet Dem projects or Deep State actors like the FBI, unless concessions are made that restore liberty.
But if rolling back the Deep State makes the GOP so unpopular it loses elections, then the banana republic that’s coming is what the voters want, and there’s no way for them not to get it.
@Bauxite:Perfect is not on offer.
Strawman. I’m not demanding perfection. I’m demanding that the Republicans show they mean what they say by using all the levers they have to roll back what the Dems are doing, instead of bloviating and appropriating, when they occupy an office.
The choice is between compromise and Joe Biden.
The voice of the serpent. “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.” The Dems are now the party of mutilating children and hiding from their parents what they are up to. The compromises of the last 40 years got us this far down the slope. Your counsel is to embrace the leftward ratchet. The situation we are in now is the fruit of that counsel and by that fruit we know it.
Trump didn’t put us here. Trump was a Hail Mary to try to get us out, which didn’t work. Until the Establishment understands that Trump was the symptom and not the disease, things will get worse before they get worse.
By your won reasoning, it won’t make a difference.
Correct. We did not vote our way in, we compromised our way in. We won’t vote our way out and it may soon be too late to fight.
TJ:
I’m not sure whether you really don’t understand what I wrote or whether you’re just interested in moving goalposts. I already explained the trajectory of our discussion, so I won’t repeat myself. I’m in favor of most of what Trump did as president, and I certainly wrote plenty of posts about that. But he did not dismantle agencies, and other candidates – Ramaswamy and DeSantis in particular – are proposing to do just that.
Neo– Reagan promised to end the Dept. of Energy and Education. Didn’t happen. Won’t happen now, regardless of who proposes it. The courts, congress and the bureaucrat labor unions won’t let it happen.
One of the challenges of those proposing strong national sovereignty, aka America First– the forces of globalism.
Most Americans fail to think through what globalism will entail when fully implemented, rather than heartily endorsing the change in our way of life. I hope so anyway.
At the core, the battle being waged against Trump, at its core, is Trump pushing back against the globalist agenda.
Here’s a very disheartening conversation between Judge Napolitano and Alistar Cook on the globalism in Europe.
Globalism Effects on U.S. & Europe w/Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador
Nice flower box. Most of my Geraniums are looking very good.
Wonder what will happen to the Wagner group now? Are those in Africia on their own? And those in Belarus?
Did not watch the “debates”. Never do. Don’t mean much. Instead enjoyed a shot of a very good Single Malt.
I donated again to Vivek. I’ve never donated to any POTUS candidate before.
I would ask what peeps thought of the debate, but don’t really think too much of the common sense of anyone who watched…
LMAO.
No, not actually giving anyone shit for doing so, but at this point, it seems truly pointless to even be considering the candidates. In my experience — now running to >40y — the ones who flame out before the primaries is legion.
well hutchinson and christie removed all doubt,
I donated the same amount to Neo. So, no hard feelings.
Watching political speeches or political debates ranks as more worthwhile than only one other activity for me — watching a Congressional hearing. Nothing is more worthless than listening to people in congress “respond” to someone else reading a boring statement.
Didn’t watch last night. I had to cut my toenails.
One thing that people need to know and appreciate about Vivek is his background. He raised millions from private investors to start his company. And then every quarter he answered questions from the Street. There are also biotech conferences where he presented.
Biotech is a very tough game and the Street is rightly skeptical. Vivek won that game, got 5 drugs to markets where Big Pharma had failed and he made millions.
A political debate is easy for him. That’s why he is so confident.
We are at a crossroads. We are in deep trouble. We need a man with his abilities to save the country. Not some old guy who wants to get revenge.
As I’m posting this the Tucker/Trump interview is at 189 million views, which even if you interpret that in a way that a large portion of those views are likely merely haters and rubber neckers or even bots, it’s probably safe to say that far more eyeballs have viewed that than the Fox News Channel debate last night. This is especially true since according to Glenn Beck this morning, Fox hasn’t yet realesed any clips for general wider media consumption for whatever reason, which I guess is fairly unprecedented. Make of that what you will,
I mean, at this point I think the RNC should seriously consider moving future debates to Twitter/X.
I’m not all that interested in Trump getting revenge. I am, however, obsessed with the country getting justice and stopping Big Brother and the evil being wreaked by Democrats.
Electing Trump would be a baseball bat to the face of a lot of people who desperately need a baseball bat to the face. And because he has a track record in the job, I know what to expect in terms of governance — unprecedented success in foreign policy and economic policy. Literally, the best first three years of any presidential term. That kinda sorta matters. I’m confident that next time he won’t make the mistake of relying on the “expertise” of dishonest, corrupt bureaucrats like Birx and Fauci should the world unleash another threat.
I’ll vote for the GOP nominee. I’m aware of Trump’s shortcomings. I didn’t vote for him in the 2016 primary. But for any of the Lilliputians on the stage last night to beat him for the nomination, they are going to have to find a way to convince people that they are LIKELY to be better than Trump was in his first three years. That will be difficult. Very, very difficult. Hopes and promises ain’t performance.
I agree with MrsX on the debate thread; hard to believe we all watched the same thing. 🙂 (Actually, that’s good. It shows that we all don’t think with one mind, have different interests and respond to different presentations/incentives.)
I also agree with those who say this is way too early to be paying attention to the race, unless one does politics for a career or is in one of the early voting primary states, but I watched anyway. Mainly because my spouse loves debates. It was more interesting than I expected.
I thought DeSantis would do poorly, come across as a bully. He did better than I expected. I also expected the others to come at him hard, since he’s polling the best of who was on the stage, but they mostly left him alone. I don’t think he lost ground last night and might have moved up a bit.
Haley came across very well. She is telegenic and comes across as trustworthy, knowledgeable and in control. She may have moved up a bit also. She drew some hard lines regarding Trump, however, and the Ever Trumpers will be coming at her. She certainly lost ground with them.
Vivek seemed to have brought the most loyalists to the event. He had many vocal supporters in the crowd. I haven’t seen data, but he almost certainly was attacked the most. Christie went at him hard, and often. Haley did too. I think Pence did also. Vivek’s performance was a bit uneven, but he also was getting hit from many sides. Overall I think he did well and will likely gain some ground from getting his name, voice and visage on the airwaves in a major event.
Scott came across well. I hadn’t seen him much prior to this and I was impressed by his openness. Expected him to be more politiciany. I don’t think he did himself any harm and may have improved his support. Comes across as very genuine.
Mike Pence and Asa Hutchinson were the big losers. Both just awful. It seems they’re assuming the Evangelical vote will carry them? The Dems have to be thrilled that Pence is in the race.
Burgum. I see a lot of people speaking positively of him post debate. I agree. He came across well. I’ve also seen people digging more into his record now that they know of him and not liking what they are finding, but he fared well last night.
Trump. Trump’s supporters have a lot to dislike about the debate. A few candidates came out hard against him, all (more on this later) stated they thought Pence did the right thing by certifying the last election. Trump’s support probably goes up after the debate (more on this later).
MacCallum, Baier and Fox. They did a lot of harm to the GOP. Seemed focused on contentious issues, loyalty pledges, theatrics (national anthem was odd, drone was goofy, video questions and footage to elicit emotion). It’s a dumb format having television presenters ask questions; especially with so many on stage and no real time to say anything meaningful or refute or actually debate. I loved how DeSantis handled the request for a “show of hands.” That was brilliant! Hopefully it puts an end to all such future spectacles. Although, about 30 minutes later they were asked to do the same to acknowledge Pence did the right thing. Debates shouldn’t be about a television network or host trying to increase their ratings or popularity through gimmicks or gotcha’s. It’s a disservice to us, the voters. There was a lot there to confirm Ever Trumpers worst fears; Fox is in bed with the Dems… Haley, Christie, DeSantis, Pence, Hutchinson… are all secret deep staters out to stop Trump…
However, for people hoping for an option other than Trump or Biden, there were some positive signs of hope.
Not the dumpster fire I expected. More of a fire in a small, office trashbin that is easily extinguished with a nearby cup of coffee.
I’d just be happy if someone could convince me that Trump could actually win in the general.
stan,
“Hopes and promises ain’t performance.”
Five of the people on last night’s stage; Hutchinson, Haley, Christie, DeSantis and Burgum are/were governors, leading the Executive branch of their respective states. Some of those states have economies that would place them among the largest nations of the world.
They all have performance to laud or criticize. No “hopes or promises” required.
There’s now talk that Trump can be denied the presidency by the 14th Amendment. This could be used to keep him off the ballot in some states. I don’t see that happening, but it’s more likely that debate about measures to keep Trump off the ballot will contribute to the stream of propaganda against him. The Atlantic has an article by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe supporting the idea. It refers to research done by two professors with Federalist Society associations, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas.
Also, Pete Buttigieg calls for a Marshall Plan to rebuild Ukraine. The man is tone deaf and lives in a fantasy world. The war is far from won, and we aren’t what we were in Marshall’s and Truman’s day.
Nonapod,
Regarding the viewership for the Trump/Carlson interview: I assume Twitter/X gets a lot more worldwide exposure than FoxNews channel. I would guess a large percentage of the interview viewers are non-US citizens.
But yeah, the GOP should allow Twitter/X and Rumble to cover the debates live.
Rufus, sorry. I don’t see being governor of a red state as being remotely like what Trump had to handle in the White House. Still all about hopes and promises.
It’s the difference between projecting and HOPING vs. actual on the job experience.
“One of these things is not like the other….”
That the GOP outsources debates to the mainstream media, allowing their premises to frame the discussion, tells me that they are not serious about change or meaningful opposition to the Left.
@Rufus:leading the Executive branch of their respective states.
Which shows they can competently run the executive branches of their home states, where they are on friendly ground and have a full Rolodex of people to turn to get things done. It doesn’t say anything about how they will do in Washington D.C., in a hostile Deep State swamp where they can’t count on their networks to help them.
It is interesting how actual performance, on the job, gets turned into something akin to ‘he had no opposition to any of his decisions’ and ‘his actions were of no consequence’ because the White House is different.
Yep the national Media and the Mouse Corporation are all in favor of certain governor, for example. He and other governors had no hard decisions.
A person’s past performance matters not, it seems.
No one except a President or ex President is qualified?
With the exceptions of DeSantis and Vivek, everybody on the stage last night was completely irrelevant. They represent a party that no longer exists. They are the reason that Trump won the election in 2016 and they have learned nothing.
Vivek doesn’t have a chance of being elected President but he is the only one who really understands the moment we’re in and has the courage to stand up against the Republican establishment. He has a future.
DeSantis doesn’t really know what he stands for. There is a big part of him that agrees with Trump and the MAGA movement but he has been persuaded by establishment donors and advisors that his moment is now and he can win by being the Trump alternative. Unfortunately DeSantis is charisma challenged and indecisive. Those hoping that this debate would provide DeSantis with some momentum will be disappointed. The enduring DeSantis image from this debate will be of him nervously checking around before raising his hand in saying he would support Trump even if he was convicted.
I would have liked to see Trump at the debate simply for entertainment value but no rational political advisor would have told him to attend that farce.
om,
“No one except a President or ex President is qualified?”
Hilarious!
Of course, their very argument disqualifies Trump from running in 2016, but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Gregory Harper,
“Unfortunately DeSantis is charisma challenged and indecisive.”
I don’t see how anyone looking at DeSantis’ resume or record as Governor of Florida can label him indecisive. If anything, the guy’s over aggression and opinionated nature are negatives. Even Trump calls him, “DeSanctimonious.”
Ever Trumpers in 2023: being a successful, re-elected Governor of a state like Florida, New Jersey, South Carolina, Arkansas or North Dakota has no correlation to the U.S. Presidency and performance in such a role should be completely discounted when casting one’s vote.
Ever Trumpers in 2015: a draft dodging, twice divorced, philandering business developer who has filed for bankruptcy four times and never held any public office has demonstrated the necessary skills to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces and lead the Executive branch of the U.S.
Wow, the stupid here is off the charts. I expect it from Om. What is the excuse for the rest of you? Y’all aren’t normally this stupid. Motivated reasoning much?
This is really pathetic.
Misstating my statement in order to attack a straw man is beneath you. I expect an apology. Not from Om. He’s incapable. But the rest of you are better than this.
Go back and try reading comprehension this time. Then find some shred of morality and realize that you let your asshole take control. Get it back under control. Try harder. And reject the stupid.
Don’t make me come back here and rip y’all some new ones for gross stupidity.
Rufus T. Firefly:
“I don’t see how anyone looking at DeSantis’ resume or record as Governor of Florida can label him indecisive. If anything, the guy’s over aggression and opinionated nature are negatives. Even Trump calls him, “DeSanctimonious.””
I think DeSantis has been a very good governor and has made good decisions. But as a presidential candidate, I still don’t know what his stance is on the Ukraine war. He seems to want to have it both ways. It doesn’t seem to be a priority for him but he still seems to support more aid. But I’m not sure.
On the issue of election integrity, he acknowledges that the 2020 election had flaws but also says that the claims of fraud have not been substantiated. He is unwilling to say the election was stolen.
He has been critical of the Trump indictments but his criticism has been nuanced. He has not come out nearly strong enough on the unconstitutional nature of the charges against Trump.
DeSantis has a very good record as governor but as a candidate he doesn’t seem to know exactly what he stands for or why people should vote for him and not someone else. He simply can not make the sale to voters, which is why his polling numbers have declined and he has had to make multiple adjustments to his staff and the focus of his message.
@Rufus:Ever Trumpers in 2023… Ever Trumpers in 2015
If there are any comments here you are characterizing this way, then what you wrote is pretty dishonest and I’m surprised to see you stoop to it.
The whole point of Trump’s appeal to Ever Trumpers in 2015 was that he was NOT qualified according to what the Establishment considers “qualified”. If they thought, in 2023, that he had now become “qualified” in that way, they’d be talking about how he was co-opted by the Swamp.
You know better than this.
To Ever Trumpers the whole point of Trump is that the Establishment hates him and does not want to do anything Trump wants done. The whole point is that he does not have a network of unelected clients and patrons who get to wet their beaks in everything and frustrate the will of the people who voted for him.
Ever Trumpers are not looking for “qualified”. They’re looking for a Tribune of the Plebs to start flipping tables and busting things up. I don’t say this is 100% reasonable or that I agree with it 100%.
My own perspective is that a “qualified” Republican is probably vulnerable to being co-opted by the Swamp in direct proportion to how well they are “qualified.” When I say DeSantis lacks a “qualification” that is praise from me.
Ever Trumpers in 2015: a draft dodging, twice divorced, philandering business developer who has filed for bankruptcy four times and never held any public office has demonstrated the necessary skills to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces and lead the Executive branch of the U.S.
==
He didn’t dodge the draft. He was awarded a 2-S deferment in 1964, renewed periodically; it expired in 1968. About 1/4 of the cohorts in question were awardd such a deferment at that time and it was modal during the period running from 1948 to 1965 for college bound youth to attend school first and then enter the military after graduation. He then had an unremarkable I-Y disqualification. About 12% of the birth cohorts in question were awarded these disqualifications at that time. He could have been recalled for another physical in as little as 90 days. As it happens, he was not, because the military’s recruitment goals did not require quick recalls of those who had been awarded contingent medical disqualifications. At the end of 1969, the draft lottery was instituted. His lottery number was high enough that he was not during calendar year 1970 summoned for a physical. He was excused from conscription after that, along with every other man in the United States born prior to 1951. His brother also drew a high lottery number. You’d only say he ‘dodged the draft’ if he did something sketchy to avoid military service, like persuaded an influential to intercede for him, or starved himself before his medical examination, or executed a series of maneuvers to shirk his ROTC service obligations, or hired a lawyer to press a bogus claim for conscientious objector status. (It’s a reasonable wager that Mitch McConnell’s abrupt medical discharge in 1968 was wangled by his former employer; James Fallowes had admitted publicly that he failed his induction physical by crash dieting; Bill Clinton snookered the Army in re ROTC; and Bernie Sanders had a bogus CO claim).
==
And, note, neither Donald Trump nor the Trump Organization ever filed for bankruptcy. The Trump Organization was an investor in projects in Atlantic City which filed for re-organization four times before he finally gave up on them.
Gregory Harper wrote – “With the exceptions of DeSantis and Vivek, everybody on the stage last night was completely irrelevant. They represent a party that no longer exists.”
It may no longer exist, but its remaining voters exist and they are increasingly refusing to vote for Trump and similar candidates. Hence, Trump and other MAGA candidates’ spectacular failures in general elections over the past three cycles.
What Trumpers fail to grasp is that MAGA is not a majority, not even close. You need a coalition with that party that “no longer exists.” You can’t, for example, swear off John McCain voters because you can’t win without them.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s arithmetic. I’m flabbergasted that Trumpers still haven’t figured this out after 2018, 2020, and 2022.
@ stan
“…find a way to convince people that they are LIKELY to be better than Trump was in his first three years. That will be difficult. Very, very difficult. Hopes and promises ain’t performance.”
• 100% agree.
• Folks far more knowledgeable than me have written about the differences between a State and National executive office – and going from a State executive office (Governor) to the National executive office (President) is definitely not a ‘Lift & Shift’ move.
• You say “hopes and promises”, I say potential – and it is fair to point out that none of last night’s debate participants have actually done the job – US President – i.e., ” performance”.
#####
• I’ll add that for much of my life I have preferred candidates that had State executive experience over those with just US Congress experience.
• Still, as I progressed in my career it became very clear to me that the best executive talent is not necessarily in government (and “not necessarily” is me being polite).
• Trump was the first President that did not have a political or military background – and I hope we see more of that.
@Bauxite: You can’t, for example, swear off John McCain voters because you can’t win without them.
Obamacare forever. Debt ceiling increases forever. “Winning” has to mean something other than putting red hogs at the trough instead of blue.
The GOP has spent at least thirty years trading full loaves for quarter loaves and then smugly telling us that “half a loaf is better than none” and “what are you going to do, vote for the Democrats”? Too many people have woken up.
Gregory Harper,
I agree with your opinion of DeSantis regarding U.S. involvement in Ukraine. To me it looks like he’s avoiding giving a firm answer because he likely is on the side of providing financial aid (and, perhaps equipment) to Ukraine but knows the Tucker Carlson wing of the party is opposed, so he tries to avoid taking a firm stance. I don’t think he would equivocate as CinC.
Regarding election integrity, he seems to feel the same as me, (neo, I think) and many others here: the Dems did shenanigans. Trump and the GOP were not pro-active nor effective enough leading up to the campaign to counteract the DNC’s tactics and, at the end of the day, the Electors that the States send to DC elect the President. The Electors the states sent voted for Biden and the Vice President certified the election; ipso facto Joseph Biden was elected President. Going down a rabbit hole of minutiae is distracting, whiny and non-Presidential. Why, as a candidate, should DeSantis do that?
Regarding criticism of Trump’s indictments. I have heard DeSantis speak clearly and decisively in opposition to what is being done. I think I have even heard him say he would pardon Trump if he is convicted. But, again, assuming DeSantis is hoping to get elected President of the United States next year; why would he focus speaking time on a contentious issue that huge swaths of the nation disagree with him on? An issue involving the past that he currently has no control over? He can’t do anything, including pardon Trump, if he’s not elected. And, as vicious as Trump has been attacking DeSantis, why should DeSantis go out of his way to risk political capital on Trump now?
On the death of Prigozhin— Peter Zeihan runs through the rogues gallery of assassin’s who could be responsible: Putin, military, the arms industry, Putin Rivals, Russian crime mafia — and there’s the list of international actors who would wish Ill upon him: Ukraine, Poland, Belo-Russia. And finally, we don’t even know that he’s dead. There were supposed to be 10 aboard the plane, yet only 8 bodies have been recovered!
It’s a FUN 5 minute spin with Peter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0UeRPNzJXY
stan has soiled himself, again.
I’m am strongly conservative. I am not a Republican, for a reason. I support Trump because the rest of the GOP field has no interest in opposing the ever-expanding government. Prove to me some other candidate will dismantle as much of the bureaucracy as possible and I will support them. Otherwise, we are just getting another four years of limp opposition that lets the left continue to run roughshod over our remaining freedoms.
Alan Colbo:
I don’t recall Trump dismantling the bureaucracy, and certainly not to any significant extent. I assume he’s now saying he will. But if so, then that merely puts him on a par with candidates such as Ramaswamy and DeSantis who say that, if elected, they will. They’ve each actually made that statement many times.
Frederick:
Do you actually think a half loaf isn’t better than none?
Do you think the perfect is the friend of the good?
Personally, I’d rather have red hogs at the trough than blue ones. Because in politics and government, there will always be a lot of hogs at the trough. Or perhaps you’ve found the secret to cloning Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith?
I watched. I was very unhappy with the way Fox produced the show. Obviously mean to goose ratings and start intramural fighting.
The format was not good and the time limits on each speaker were not enforced. The time limits also weren’t adequate. One minuet to explain your position on an issue in detail? Please.
I thought DeSantis did a credible job, but it’s hard to stand out in a format like that.
Vivek was the target of the establishment politicians, and he weathered the incoming rather well. I’m still impressed by his ability to think on his feet and not be cowed by criticism.
Nikki Haley had a good moment on abortion. One that the Republicans in general should pay attention to, IMO.
“But as for a federal ban, Haley said politicians “need to be honest with the American people and say it will take 60 Senate votes, it will take a majority of the House.”
“So, in order to do that, let’s find consensus,” she said. “Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortion shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we all agree that contraception should be available? And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”
Makes sense to me.
At least you get some impression about each candidate, but until DJT shows up, the picture will be incomplete and hard to judge.
Rufus: “MacCallum, Baier and Fox. They did a lot of harm to the GOP.”
Yes!!!
Dave supports Vivek: Ramaswamy became a complete “no way” for me with that Taiwan comment a week and a half ago on the Hugh Hewitt show https://hughhewitt.com/vivek-ramaswamy-on-all-things-national-security (emphasis added):
It’s just that type of comment from Biden about a potential invasion of Ukraine (“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do”) that practically invited Russia to invade Ukraine. And, Vivek made it clear that there is no room for misunderstanding him–as far as he’s concerned our relationships with allies should be purely what’s supposedly best for us at an instantaneous moment. G-d forbid everyone feels like that about their family and friends.
On foreign policy, if my recollection of last night’s debate is correct, Pence and Haley got it right.
@ Bauxite
“Hence, Trump and other MAGA candidates’ spectacular failures in general elections over the past three cycles. This isn’t rocket science. It’s arithmetic. I’m flabbergasted that Trumpers still haven’t figured this out after 2018, 2020, and 2022.”
A) 2018 Election
• In the last 20 mid-term elections, the party in the WH has lost seats in the House 20 times (100%).
• 6 Presidents have seen more House seats lost than Trump: -40 (Obama: -63, Clinton: -52, Ford: -48, LBJ: -47, Eisenhower: -48, Truman: -45).
• In the last 20 mid-term elections, the party in the WH has lost seats in the Senate 13 times (65%).
• Only 6 Presidents – including Trump: +2 – have seen seats gained in the Senate (Biden: +1, GWB: +2, Regan: +1, Nixon: +2, JFK: +3).
B) 2020 Election
• Trump had 74,223, 975 – undisputed votes – which was 17.84% more votes than he received in 2016.
• It was the most votes ever received by a Republican candidate (Reagan, GWB, Bush, Nixon, etc.).
• It was also 19.64% more votes than the next highest Republican candidate – 2004: GWB.
C) 2022 Election
• Another mid-term election that followed historical precedents in the House – but not Senate.
• After the SC decision in June, abortion was a significant issue – maybe THE issue, for many citizens.
• More Trump endorsed candidates won their election than lost their election.
• “Trump’s endorsees won 216 of the 257 called races held on Nov. 8 (84%).” — Ballotpedia
I think all the other candidates should be clear on the question of if they would pardon Trump or not. I’m of the opinion that pardoning Trump should be an absolute no brainer for any potential future Republican president given the Deep State’s vile lawfare. You don’t have to love Trump to utterly deplore the insane lawlessness of the current regime regarding their treatment of him.
stan:
If you’re going to address people about being misinterpreted or misjudged, you’d be far more effective to avoid words like “asshole”. I don’t have time to check every comment on this thread, but I also suggest to you that if you think someone has wronged you, don’t yell at some nameless group, but name the person you’re addressing and even put in the time of their comment, so that other people can find it and follow what you’re actually complaining about.
I also suggest that perhaps if Trump had been a governor, he might have known more people in government who would be on his side and wouldn’t have appointed so many back-stabbers.
Frederick @ 1:24pm,
You yourself have previously written to the effect that; if DeSantis becomes the nominee the Establishment will come after him, or any other Republican, just as hard as they did at Trump. And Bush. And Bush. And Reagan…
I don’t know if DeSantis or Haley or Ramaswamy can battle the media and entrenched state any better than Trump, but I do know the media and entrenched state were able to stymie Trump and undo much of what he did.
“The whole point is that he does not have a network of unelected clients and patrons who get to wet their beaks in everything and frustrate the will of the people who voted for him.”
Maybe it’s not a bad idea to have a network of like minded supporters already in positions to help, to assist with a POTUS’ attempt at enacting the will of the people. Trump did a terrible job of picking and retaining staff, even extremely key staff.
Remember what happened to the last guy who flipped tables? Are we electing a martyr or a President?
Art Deco,
Trump certainly didn’t volunteer for military service, did he? We can split hairs over the definition of the word, “dodged,” but I’m suspect of anyone campaigning for the job of CinC who did not serve. However, unlike me, most Americans have moved on from thinking that should be a consideration. It’s like electing an Attorney General or Supreme Court justice who didn’t study law, or pass the Bar. Yeah, it’s not a legal requirement, but odd that it wouldn’t be of interest to the job applicant.
Regarding the bankruptcies; so, what you’re saying is, just like Hunter Biden, or Sam Bankman Fried, Trump was smart enough to have enough shell entities to shield his personal wealth from his business dealings?
@neo:Do you actually think a half loaf isn’t better than none?
“The GOP has spent at least thirty years trading full loaves for quarter loaves and then smugly telling us that “half a loaf is better than none”
The last debt ceiling raise is a perfect example. We’re now at 120% debt to GDP ratio. The GOP House had to do absolutely nothing to win that, and they chose to give that away.
Rufus T. Firefly; Frederick:
Last night DeSantis had a very good moment when he called out the moderators for asking a stupid yes or no question where the candidates were required to raise their hands (I can’t find a transcript, but I think it had something to do with January 6th and was a real gotcha type thing). It showed that he has the guts to challenge the press – and to go “process” rather than always sticking with content. He’s done that a lot as governor when dealing with the press and with attacks on him – and he’s had plenty of such attacks.
Frederick:
Full loaves? I beg to differ there. A sure thing was traded away? Absolutely not.
I repeat: do you not think half a loaf is better than none?
Also, you may not have noticed, but I’ve put up a new post on some of these issues. See this.
Regarding the debt ceiling fight, surely you are aware of the arguments about what would happen if it weren’t raised. You may think those arguments are garbage, but they certainly exist and I believe they hold some weight.
I’m sure DeSantis would be a fine President if a Republican President could be elected in 2024. But the Republican Party has done nothing, despite whatever intentions or efforts, to change the reality of how the elections will work in the swing states, and are not willing to use other levers that they have, and so this is not going to happen in 2024. And we can make all the excuses for them and cite all the platitudes we wish, and every day our capability to resist diminishes.
Frederick:
Swing states are states where Republicans don’t have control. I’ve chronicled several attempts made by Republicans in those states to change things for the better, and they are often stopped by the courts or by a Democrat governor’s veto. You need to be specific about exactly what could have been realistically accomplished by the GOP in exactly what state or states and was not tried.
@neo:You need to be specific about exactly what could have been realistically accomplished by the GOP in exactly what state or states and was not tried.
My being specific does not change the fact, that the things have not been done, and that until the things have been done, the 2024 Presidential election is unwinnable for a Republican. No amount of talk changes that the things are not done that would need to be done.
The only thing my being specific can do, is provide cover for not holding the GOP accountable for the situation, because a motivated person can find any number of reasons why they couldn’t or shouldn’t have attempted to do those enumerated things, I don’t doubt. But failing to hold Republicans accountable for not doing things does not change the reality that the things were not done.
Failing to hold them accountable does, however, allow grifters to continue to grift until the banana republic is here forever. It won’t inconvenience them a bit; they can still make money under one-party rule. China’s eight minority political parties have a pretty sweet gig too.
You did eventually acknowledge that Dem-style lawfare could be practiced by Republicans, and you do know that blue counties in red states with red governors can somehow indict and convict Republican politicians, so it’s not like Republicans have to control every branch before they can do anything significant. There’s no reason why Republicans can’t fight back with the strengths they have in the areas they control. The debt ceiling was another, those hundreds of billions could have extracted a lot of concessions, but it was just given up, and it’s been done over and over. Mitch McConnell nuked a Republican filibuster to give up the debt ceiling fight the time before that.
The more the grifters give up to keep the grift going, the less we have to fight with.
And if you want to make the case that the voters will never accept real conservatives in place of the RINOs, then relax, your banana republic is going to happen by majority demand, and there’s nothing to be done.
Frederick:
You fail to get the point or to address the point I was making. I would dearly love for “things to be done” to fix the election rules and make elections more secure. I don’t think there’s a person here who doesn’t agree with that, as well as with the fact that such things have not been done very often (actually, DeSantis did them in Florida but he had a Republican legislature – although that’s not necessarily a guarantee that such things will be done). You accused the GOP of doing nothing that has changed the situation and you wrote “we can make all the excuses for them and cite all the platitudes we wish.” But why criticize people for not changing something when they tried and failed due to circumstances they could not control? That’s not making an excuse, it’s facing reality. If you can’t cite an instance where they failed to try to change something that could have realistically been changed by such efforts, what’s your beef with them about that issue? That they can’t wave a magic wand?
In addition, I never have acknowledged that Democratic-style lawfare should – or even in many cases could – be accomplished by Republicans. I have always been in favor of bona fide legal challenges by Republicans and have written about that many times and chronicled their history. What I said about lawfare recently was that the type of lawfare that Democrats practice – twisting the law and using it in shady ways that are blatantly unfair and political – would be hard for Republicans to do for a host of reasons, which I listed. I have not wavered from that position. I asked people to suggest some lawsuits that Republicans could file that might work and don’t involve straining and twisting the law out of shape, and a couple such lawsuits were mentioned. It was THOSE with which I agree and of which I approve. So there was no change in my attitude, not before and not now.
@neo:You accused the GOP of doing nothing that has changed the situation
Neo, this is not my “accusation”, this is the fact and you even acknowledged it:
“I’ve chronicled several attempts made by Republicans in those states to change things for the better, and they are often stopped by the courts or by a Democrat governor’s veto.”
It has not changed, YOU said it. I’m sure you can recount a longer list of things that were tried and did not succeed.
The only difference between where you are coming from and where I am coming from is that it does not matter to me that they tried really hard (assuming that they did). Because trying really hard and failing leaves the 2024 election unwinnable, no matter how hard they tried or how excusable that they failed.
what’s your beef with them about that issue? That they can’t wave a magic wand?
Every time I raise something, you just give a reason why that doesn’t count and then demand I give another, and if I don’t you say I’m expecting a magic wand. The biggest GOP failures to use the power they have would be the last two debt ceiling increases. You have your reasons for why you don’t think they have any blame there. Okay.
But I’m not asking for a magic wand. The House right now can “veto” all legislation and spending by refusing to pass anything, that “veto” cannot be overturned, and it doesn’t use that power to effect real change. That’s a huge weapon and it is lying unused. And you have your reasons why that shouldn’t count. Okay.
They can’t change state election laws with that power, or rein in county District Attorneys, but there is a hell of a lot they could do, and don’t, because they gave up the leverage already. They needed more to see their cronies get paid than to do anything to rein the rest of the Federal Government. And you have your reasons why they shouldn’t be blamed. Okay. Excuse them all you wish.
Meanwhile, the winning Democrats shape the political world to their liking. Because THEY are willing to USE what THEY have. Because they will give up some grift to get power.
Neo versus Alan Colbo. Neo begins “I don’t recall Trump dismantling the bureaucracy, and certainly not to any significant extent.
Let the debate begin! I’ll begin by summarising a study testing that very question, empirically (Summer 2020), for the first two years of his term. It begins by acknowledging that Trump’s big promises to make big reductions in the regulatory bureaucracy. But did he deliver? Yes. (Albeit the study’s authors demure: see ADDENDUM.)
THE DETAILS: The key act was the Executive Order 13771 signed into law in January 30, 2017, requiring bureaucrats to eliminate two rules before a new on is advanced, and “The cost of the implementation of these new regulations was supposed to be less than or equal to 0 dollars.” (As key rebuke to Trumpism, Joe Biden rescinded the Order on January 20, 2021 — the very day of his inauguration.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13771
“Finding 1: The flow of new regulations was much smaller than under the previous two administrations.
“The pace of issuing new regulations under President Trump has slowed considerably compared to recent presidential administrations. Table 1 [SEE ORIGINAL, BELOW] reports the number of new regulations issued in the first 24 months of the Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush presidencies. As the table shows, the total number of final regulations issued under Trump is approximately 40% smaller than the number issued under Bush or Obama. The number of significant regulations under Trump is almost 50% smaller than the number issued under Bush and Obama. For major rules (i.e., the most economically significant rules), the counts under both Trump and Bush are substantially smaller than under Obama….
“Why is the flow of new regulations so small under Trump? His administration did propose large cuts in the budgets of regulatory agencies, though Congress largely failed to adopt them even when it was controlled by Republicans. Therefore, we believe the most important factor may be the appointments President Trump made to the federal regulatory agencies because they appear to have been made with a preference for deregulation.”
There are five more findings discussed in the study, some discussing improvements upon Trump’s performance of reducing regulation burden by roughly 50%.
I think Neo is mistaken here, and Alan’s impression is shown to be correct. Trump dramatically reduced the regulatory bureaucrat arms through which needless, burdensome costs are foisted on our citizens.
SOURCE: Regulation, (Summer 2020, a Cato Institute journal)
https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2020/deregulation-under-trump#recommendations
ADDENDUM My interpretation should be admitted to be MY READING of their data. The authorS above disagree (and if you know Cato Institute, you’ll know why) with me! Their title reads “ Deregulation Under Trump;
Despite claims of broad deregulation, the administration’s hallmark has been little regulatory activity.” In other words, the authors further findings indicate that Trump deregulation was NOT RADICAL ENOUGH!
The conclusion spends one paragraph in praise of Trump, while the second and final paragraph is critical, quoting, “However, Trump’s effectiveness as a deregulator has been hampered by a lack of political appointees in key regulatory agencies and a skeptical judicial branch dominated by judges appointed under Democratic administrations. The president could improve his effectiveness as a deregulator by filling key administrative positions that are now vacant or held by “acting” appointees, paying greater attention to the administrative process for revising existing regulations, and developing better metrics for deregulation.”
Thus, he did historically good on the issue, but there’s further improvement needed on the deregulation front.
Is this what is happening, what am I missing?
Trump going to jail for agreeing with Biden? Joe Biden: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” (Nov. 5, 2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0
TJ:
The definition of “dismantle” is to disassemble and take apart into pieces. That is what I’m talking about, that Trump didn’t do and yet it’s what both Ramaswamy and DeSantis are promising (maybe others are also promising, but I’m not aware of it).
From Vivek: see this. From DeSantis: see this.
I never said that Trump did nothing to reduce the regulatory burden. I have no idea why you would interpret my remarks that way. Alan Colbo had written “Prove to me some other candidate will dismantle as much of the bureaucracy as possible and I will support them.” I said “dismantle” as well, and that’s what I meant.
Trump certainly didn’t volunteer for military service, did he?
==
If that was your complaint, you’d have made that complaint. But then you’d have had to subscribe to the argument that candidates for public office are obligated to have volunteered for military service. That would disqualify every Republican presidential candidate of note in the last generation bar John McCain, George Bush the Younger, Steve Forbes, Robert Dole, and George Bush the Elder. And, of course, partisan Democrats would complain that Bush the Younger and Forbes enlisted in the National Guard and not the regular armed services and did so when the alternative was accepting conscription. (It would also disqualify every Democrat bar Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, and Bob Kerrey; everyone knows Gore’s enlistment was an abbreviated public relations exercise and Kerry, like most, was acting in a context where conscription was the alternative).
==
We can split hairs over the definition of the word, “dodged,”
==
I’m not splitting hairs. You and others are misleading people. He followed the law and was disqualified according to a standing procedure. Over 100,000 such disqualifications were handed out every year.
==
but I’m suspect of anyone campaigning for the job of CinC who did not serve.
==
You’re suspect [sic.] of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Alan Keyes, and Pat Buchanan. How about Ronald Reagan? He was given a soft posting in southern California making army training films. Ron Paul joined the Air National Guard just before he was due for conscription and spent six years doing flight physicals p/t.
==
It’s like electing an Attorney General or Supreme Court justice who didn’t study law, or pass the Bar. Yeah, it’s not a legal requirement, but odd that it wouldn’t be of interest to the job applicant.
==
FDR never served in the military and Abraham Lincoln’s service was limited to some militia duty. The Attorney-General is a law job. Supervising the military is an aspect of the President’s job.
==
Regarding the bankruptcies; so, what you’re saying is, just like Hunter Biden, or Sam Bankman Fried, Trump was smart enough to have enough shell entities to shield his personal wealth from his business dealings?
==
No, you’re saying that and misleading people again. Trump did not do anything criminal or crooked. It was a business venture which did not succeed. And when you’ve learned what is meant by the term ‘shareholder’, get back to me.
Frederick – Perfect is not on offer. The choice is between compromise and Joe Biden.
And your 1-2 doesn’t make any sense either. As soon as anyone argues that the MAGA candidate can’t win, you insist that no Republican can win. If no Republican can win anyway, let the non-MAGA Rebublicans have the nomination and give it a try. By your won reasoning, it won’t make a difference.
Hopes and promises ain’t performance.
–stan
One thing leads to another….
_______________________________
Wishin’ and hopin’ and thinkin’ and prayin’
Plannin’ and dreamin’ each night of his charms
That won’t get you into his arms
So if you’re lookin’ to find love you can share
All you gotta do is
Hold him and kiss him and love him
And show him that you care
–Dusty Springfield, “Wishin’ And Hopin'”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkhyXpZ22gM
_______________________________
I’ve never watched Springfield perform. I was somewhat disconcerted by her mannikin mannerisms — a little too “uncanny valley.”
But hey, it’s Dusty. What a voice. I loved her as a kid. Still do. And it’s a Burt Bacharach song.
Talent was everywhere those days.
I wonder how the lyrics might apply to politics. I could do without the hugging and kissing, but I would like my candidates to care.
Frederick:
You write, “Neo, this is not my ‘accusation’, this is the fact and you even acknowledged it.”
Indeed I did. I never said your accusation wasn’t a fact – what an odd thought, that an accusation can’t be a fact. Accusations are very commonly facts. It is only false accusations that are not facts.
We were mainly discussing lawfare efforts, and that has been the focus of my comments to you. You had written, “the Republican Party has done nothing, despite whatever intentions or efforts, to change the reality of how the elections will work in the swing states.” That was the reason I asked you to give examples of where and how they might have changed that. You have not given an example, but then you brought up the debt ceiling, and I pointed out that doing what you suggest could have even worse consequences than not doing it. We can certainly disagree on that. Now you are saying that the “House right now can ‘veto’ all legislation and spending by refusing to pass anything.” No spending, ye olde “government shutdown” – what percentage of the population would support that? If the GOP did that, they’d lose Congress in addition to the presidency.
Trump’s mugshot has been posted online. But after two hours, the original share has only been seen 34 million times. /sarc
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1694886846050771321
Saved file.
And bookmarked.
Just as MTG did (photoshopping her mugshot pic in support), I am with Trump too. THIS FIGHT CAN BE WON!
TJ:
Are you really trying to say that looking at Trump’s mugshot is evidence of support for him? While I have no doubt that many people looking at it do indeed support him – and I expect them to wear the image on T-shirts and the like – there are also plenty of people loving to look at his mugshot who hate his guts and would be only too happy to see him in prison or even dead. They are in jubilation.
Neo. “The definition of “dismantle” is to disassemble and take apart into pieces. That is what I’m talking about, that Trump didn’t do….” Come now. Surely you know the Uniparty wing of the Rs, including the powerful US Chamber of Commerce, and the taxpayer dollars sucked from Congress via increasingly DC-area corporate headquarters like Boeing, tell you whose goose is getting cooked by the other branch. Ours.
Of course. one can intend building an ultimate border barrier or a ‘deconstruction of the administrative state’ all you want, but if Congress does not approve it, it won’t happen like you hoped. Or like We hoped.
Once more: “I never said that Trump did nothing to reduce the regulatory burden. I have no idea why you would interpret my remarks that way.”
Oh, please. I offered an evidence based measure and I called it historically unprecedented. Do you dispute that?
Instead, you impose your binary choice of “not nothing” or incomplete “disassembly”, which you know isn’t how practical politics is done, and thus an unreasonable imposition on the facts in evidence.
Temporising on Trump’s deregulation? According to my citation, Trump explicitly “called for both a moratorium on new regulations and an explicit process of review and repeal of unnecessary regulations, which some advisers referred to as ‘deconstruction of the administrative state.’ Since entering office, he has frequently revisited those themes.”
And Trump did as he said. And the team pushed it as far as Capital Hill process allowed it to go. The gift of grift really is so great (Pace, Biden).
I recall that a review of Trump’s campaign promises by Law prof at Scalia School of Law, David Bernstein, found this libertarian pleasantly surprised by the very high numbers he kept. Underestimate Trump? I’ll say, do so at your own risk.
By the by, talking Bushites, has anyone heard any news from Sen. McConnell? He’s the ultimate compromising Uniparty leader… Health issues and replacement in the winds?
(PS THANKS for the sparring, partner!)
@neo:No spending, ye olde “government shutdown” – what percentage of the population would support that? If the GOP did that, they’d lose Congress in addition to the presidency.
You’re positing a very extreme line of action, and attributing it to me. Please don’t do that.
There’s a lot of ground the Republicans could explore between “rubberstamping the Dems” and “no spending of any kind and total shutdown”. Could be as simple targeting pet Dem projects or Deep State actors like the FBI, unless concessions are made that restore liberty.
But if rolling back the Deep State makes the GOP so unpopular it loses elections, then the banana republic that’s coming is what the voters want, and there’s no way for them not to get it.
@Bauxite:Perfect is not on offer.
Strawman. I’m not demanding perfection. I’m demanding that the Republicans show they mean what they say by using all the levers they have to roll back what the Dems are doing, instead of bloviating and appropriating, when they occupy an office.
The choice is between compromise and Joe Biden.
The voice of the serpent. “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.” The Dems are now the party of mutilating children and hiding from their parents what they are up to. The compromises of the last 40 years got us this far down the slope. Your counsel is to embrace the leftward ratchet. The situation we are in now is the fruit of that counsel and by that fruit we know it.
Trump didn’t put us here. Trump was a Hail Mary to try to get us out, which didn’t work. Until the Establishment understands that Trump was the symptom and not the disease, things will get worse before they get worse.
By your won reasoning, it won’t make a difference.
Correct. We did not vote our way in, we compromised our way in. We won’t vote our way out and it may soon be too late to fight.
TJ:
I’m not sure whether you really don’t understand what I wrote or whether you’re just interested in moving goalposts. I already explained the trajectory of our discussion, so I won’t repeat myself. I’m in favor of most of what Trump did as president, and I certainly wrote plenty of posts about that. But he did not dismantle agencies, and other candidates – Ramaswamy and DeSantis in particular – are proposing to do just that.
Neo– Reagan promised to end the Dept. of Energy and Education. Didn’t happen. Won’t happen now, regardless of who proposes it. The courts, congress and the bureaucrat labor unions won’t let it happen.
One of the challenges of those proposing strong national sovereignty, aka America First– the forces of globalism.
Most Americans fail to think through what globalism will entail when fully implemented, rather than heartily endorsing the change in our way of life. I hope so anyway.
At the core, the battle being waged against Trump, at its core, is Trump pushing back against the globalist agenda.
Here’s a very disheartening conversation between Judge Napolitano and Alistar Cook on the globalism in Europe.
Globalism Effects on U.S. & Europe w/Alastair Crooke fmr Brit ambassador
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYjte2drRnU