Elections have consequences. So were we told by our antepenultimate President, and so is demonstrated almost every day. The Democrats, continuing to treat their razor thin majorities in the House and the Senate as mandates for radical action, just passed a
On the COVID issue, any President would feel prey to it. The real danger to this Republic is the Federal Government and its Agencies. It also keep on growing... and grow some more. Does the IRS rings a bell?
This is actually the first Roots of Liberty in a long time where I feel very, very astray from your ideas.
Why on earth would anyone take the left's conceptual framing of 2020 (Trump lost the Senate, Trump's antics are driving the base, Trump cultists, etc.) and actually run with it? Did "Trump-backed candidates" win, or did the left-backed candidates win? And by what mechanism did they win, by appealing to the zombie-brain-MAGA-cult, or by good old fashioned politicking and money-raising and blatant cheating (Fulton County, GA, etc.) That's not "Electoral Lie" stuff, it's simply acknowledging how the left goes about elections: it tells people Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, before, during, and after the fact.
I'm really starting to feel crazy seeing this get repeated so much. Why on earth are so many on the right going along with the left's endless Trump-cultism-narrative?
How on earth did Trump lose Georgia instead of the Democrats WINNING Georgia? We need to look at what the left does - and particularly what it does in the name of Trump/ Trumpism - and stop looking at things through the lenses they give us.
I don't consider you someone easily swayed by the sorcerers of narrative in lefty or righty media and hope this doesn't come across that way. I'm just starting to get that Poseidon Adventure feeling whenever people keep framing every discussion like this. No other person in American history gets "blank-backed" candidate the way Trump does, and it's authored by the same folks who brought you every Big Lie over the past 5-10 years. Why are we doing this?
I'm FAR from the only person who concluded that Trump's post-loss antics depressed the GOP vote in GA enough to tip the scales in favor of the Democrats. He threw massive shade on the runoffs, calling them illegal and invalid, and many have concluded that lots of his supporters stayed home rather than voting.
Can I say beyond a doubt that he tipped the election? Obviously not. But his antics were *not* helpful, and they could have also motivated Democratic voters to come out in greater numbers there than they might otherwise have.
Trump's endorsements carried weight in the three primaries I mentioned, with little doubt. Are they the best choices for the GOP? I don't think so.
Trump is a big part of the landscape, whether we like it or not, and I'd be remiss if I ignored him. I do believe that he'd be a weaker candidate and a poorer President than the others I named, and if I can convince some "loyalists" to vote policies and electability over person, I'd consider that a good thing. If he remains the front-runner for the GOP nomination (as the gambling markets show), I'll continue to cover him, because that's reality.
It's OK that we disagree, of course - it'd be boring if we didn't. :)
I think you make a great deal of sense, but I just don't get this Trump BS.
I just don't perceive Trump's endorsements being equal to the left's huge fundraising and massive media pushes for the same candidates. We should call them what they are and not use their framing.
I understand I'm out on a limb on this one, I guess, but I feel very strongly about it. We are making a huge mistake by continuing this trajectory.
Again, I'm just commenting on what I see, not trying to advance a narrative (or so I hope, at least). There remain *many* Trump-is-my-guy loyalists out there - I know a few personally - and they listen to their guy as much or more than judging things independently.
It's all reinforced by the "us against them" binary-ness that the Left has caused, but it doesn't mean the phenomenon isn't real.
I have likened it in the past as Trump is cocaine, and the left wants a monopoly on it. Trump, Inc. and the left are fighting for that.
The best way is to get out of the cocaine distribution business, for me. Or consumption. I would call this, in these terms, the Youngkin/DeSantis approach.
I guess I see the whole "Trump candidate" "Trump cultism" thing as just more marketing for one of the cartels, and I'd rather just not do it. But you're right: these consumers/ addicts exist. And they're going to be manipulated one way or the other.
Peter, do you think if Trump wins the nomination Cheney may run as 3rd candidate out of spite? She has stated she will do anything within her power to prevent him from becoming president again. This thought occurred to me recently, hell hath no fury...
I think she will go nowhere, even if she tries. She could look to get the nomination from one of the minor parties that has ballot lines in many states, or she could try to run an independent campaign. The latter would take a LOT of money, and I don't see her raising much. It'd also take a big political machine, but a "Trump sucks" message isn't going to get far when there's a Democratic Party there already saying that.
It's 2.5 years to the election. She will be a memory by then - or a TV talking head. She started out on principle, but her ego got in the way and she crashed and burned.
I just HATE reading this blog … but sickeningly know you are right 😭
From your lips to God’s ears!
On the COVID issue, any President would feel prey to it. The real danger to this Republic is the Federal Government and its Agencies. It also keep on growing... and grow some more. Does the IRS rings a bell?
This is actually the first Roots of Liberty in a long time where I feel very, very astray from your ideas.
Why on earth would anyone take the left's conceptual framing of 2020 (Trump lost the Senate, Trump's antics are driving the base, Trump cultists, etc.) and actually run with it? Did "Trump-backed candidates" win, or did the left-backed candidates win? And by what mechanism did they win, by appealing to the zombie-brain-MAGA-cult, or by good old fashioned politicking and money-raising and blatant cheating (Fulton County, GA, etc.) That's not "Electoral Lie" stuff, it's simply acknowledging how the left goes about elections: it tells people Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, before, during, and after the fact.
I'm really starting to feel crazy seeing this get repeated so much. Why on earth are so many on the right going along with the left's endless Trump-cultism-narrative?
How on earth did Trump lose Georgia instead of the Democrats WINNING Georgia? We need to look at what the left does - and particularly what it does in the name of Trump/ Trumpism - and stop looking at things through the lenses they give us.
I don't consider you someone easily swayed by the sorcerers of narrative in lefty or righty media and hope this doesn't come across that way. I'm just starting to get that Poseidon Adventure feeling whenever people keep framing every discussion like this. No other person in American history gets "blank-backed" candidate the way Trump does, and it's authored by the same folks who brought you every Big Lie over the past 5-10 years. Why are we doing this?
I'm FAR from the only person who concluded that Trump's post-loss antics depressed the GOP vote in GA enough to tip the scales in favor of the Democrats. He threw massive shade on the runoffs, calling them illegal and invalid, and many have concluded that lots of his supporters stayed home rather than voting.
Can I say beyond a doubt that he tipped the election? Obviously not. But his antics were *not* helpful, and they could have also motivated Democratic voters to come out in greater numbers there than they might otherwise have.
Trump's endorsements carried weight in the three primaries I mentioned, with little doubt. Are they the best choices for the GOP? I don't think so.
Trump is a big part of the landscape, whether we like it or not, and I'd be remiss if I ignored him. I do believe that he'd be a weaker candidate and a poorer President than the others I named, and if I can convince some "loyalists" to vote policies and electability over person, I'd consider that a good thing. If he remains the front-runner for the GOP nomination (as the gambling markets show), I'll continue to cover him, because that's reality.
It's OK that we disagree, of course - it'd be boring if we didn't. :)
I think you make a great deal of sense, but I just don't get this Trump BS.
I just don't perceive Trump's endorsements being equal to the left's huge fundraising and massive media pushes for the same candidates. We should call them what they are and not use their framing.
I understand I'm out on a limb on this one, I guess, but I feel very strongly about it. We are making a huge mistake by continuing this trajectory.
Again, I'm just commenting on what I see, not trying to advance a narrative (or so I hope, at least). There remain *many* Trump-is-my-guy loyalists out there - I know a few personally - and they listen to their guy as much or more than judging things independently.
It's all reinforced by the "us against them" binary-ness that the Left has caused, but it doesn't mean the phenomenon isn't real.
This is true.
I have likened it in the past as Trump is cocaine, and the left wants a monopoly on it. Trump, Inc. and the left are fighting for that.
The best way is to get out of the cocaine distribution business, for me. Or consumption. I would call this, in these terms, the Youngkin/DeSantis approach.
I guess I see the whole "Trump candidate" "Trump cultism" thing as just more marketing for one of the cartels, and I'd rather just not do it. But you're right: these consumers/ addicts exist. And they're going to be manipulated one way or the other.
Peter, do you think if Trump wins the nomination Cheney may run as 3rd candidate out of spite? She has stated she will do anything within her power to prevent him from becoming president again. This thought occurred to me recently, hell hath no fury...
I think she will go nowhere, even if she tries. She could look to get the nomination from one of the minor parties that has ballot lines in many states, or she could try to run an independent campaign. The latter would take a LOT of money, and I don't see her raising much. It'd also take a big political machine, but a "Trump sucks" message isn't going to get far when there's a Democratic Party there already saying that.
It's 2.5 years to the election. She will be a memory by then - or a TV talking head. She started out on principle, but her ego got in the way and she crashed and burned.
This is a good bit of coverage:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/08/what-liz-cheney-sacrificed
"or a TV talking head"
I did see some comments suggesting we'd see her on "The View" before long.