(03-29-2023 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I understand. We will both be voting on principle. For me, it is more about the agenda than the man.
In some aspects, for me, the man matters. That is who at the helm and moves the levers is important.
Example --- when you have a President and CEO of an investment group or hedge fund, an important requirement is how the fund operates and produces profits. No doubt.
No doubt I would not support an oaf or a buffoon that cant move the fund or endeavor into profitability.
If the successful CEO is also trying to, through shady (let alone illegal maneuvering), trying to ace any and all investors out of the fund for purpose of his own power, I would have very serious second thoughts about that person at that position.
Kind of a double hurdle for me, where each step is a requisite.
It isnt an 'either/ or' in my book. It is a two step requirement.
Quote:I think we would both be happy to vote vote somebody who followed Trump's agenda but is not named Trump.
If the issues are strictly limited to tax policy, foreign policy, policy on things like gun laws, environmental policy, social policy, and I would include Federal court nominees, you hit the above spot on.
Quote:When I say agenda, I mean tax policy, foreign policy, policy on things like gun laws, environmental policy, social policy. I mean the laws they will pursue. Trump has a record on that. Biden does too. I prefer Trump's record.
The analysis changes when instead of focusing on the "laws they will pursue", to the "laws they will break in the pursuit". Trump has a record on that. Biden does too. I dont prefer Trump's record over Biden in that regard.
Quote:Would not be the first time we elected somebody with less than impeccable morals. 1996 comes to mind. So does 2020. So does 1964, 1968, and 1972.
"Impeccable morals" is seemingly a soft shoe reference to scheming to short circuit the Constitution, mind you.
As for the cited years, conspiring to short circuit a Constitutional process doe not readily equate to, in order, receiving a blow job from an intern.
Yes, 1968 and 1972 might be comparable if one had a magic time machine and knew a priori that that one would actively obstruct justice and help coverup a crime to benefit his continued Presidency. No one in 1968 or in had a notion to vote according to those events that would *be* revealed in 1973 and led to the only resignation of a President under not a cloud of 'bad morals' but one of abuse of power and violation of the Constitution.
Maybe 2020, lets see how any investigations turn out more specifics. That is to the granular level we seem to have a posteriori knowledge of the choices both in 2016 and 2020 --- for both candidates in each of those election. And at the expense of being blunt, the facts surrounding Trump's 'lets try to short circuit the election results of 2020' seem far sharper at this point in time than those surrounding 'the Big Guy', mind you.
Interestingly since you include perfect foreknowledge for 2020, 1968, and 1972, perhaps you should include 2016 in that as well.
Quote:Also, the VP plays a part. If we elect Biden again, I expect Harris to be President before 2028. One way or another. At least she has a nice smile. We don't know who Trump's VP would be, but I am sure I would prefer him/her to Harris.
I assume this time around Trump will put in a person who wont necessarily disagree with him on a way to circumvent the election results on a fiat basis. I assume that is a #1 priority on Trump's checklist going forward.
Quote:There is an old saying that comes to mind:
"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face".
There is another old saying -- 'try to stay away from electing folks who try to short circuit election results on a fiat basis.'
Quote:That's the way I see all these "any Republican but Trump" votes. JMHO.
Thats the way I see the efforts of trying to downplay the documented very troubling items about Trump into the softer, more palatable 'moral issues', or 'he offended people' to justify voting for Trump. Much easier to do that than say, 'yeah, he tried to short circuit the election process into having him declared winner by fiat, but aside from that he is okay.'
Getting over that truthful first statement is a barrier for some. Approaching it in the much softer 'he has moral issues' is the much better marketing campaign.
Honestly, employing that level of soft sell might, to many, be equivalent of noting that 'Madoff? Just some accounting irregularities....'.
Quote:When it comes down to it, we are each just one vote in a large state. I certainly hold/will hold no animosity toward people who see things differently. I think all of us here are just discussing our rationale for our choices.
Nor I.
