Speak for yourself.
I am NEVER-Ron. Since the outset of this 2024 race my metric has been binary: Trump or no one. Given that measure, to me Good's DeSantis support means he is a saboteur or stupid — either way, he tore up his "one of us" card. And yes, that is my assessment of every single DeSantite.
What a ridiculous response. It shows you’re not a conservative.
If you want to get things moving in the right direction and not in a more liberal, Big Government direction, then we need good conservatives like Good and DeSantis who have proven records.
Trump increased the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government. DeSantis and people like Bob Good have stood for us, beaten our enemies, cut spending (check the Florida budget), and stood for (and enacted, at least in Florida) conservative policies across the range of issues that matter.
But you’re butthurt becaue they didn’t support your leader.
Desantis has a lane but then Trump was indicted and the campaign was over. Trump had massive vulnerabilities in the primaries but the Dems helped him immensely.
The Dems’ lawfare against Trump made it impossible to reject Trump’s bid for the ’24 nomination - and it seems to me that Trump seriously tried to accomplish what he promised - and that but for the Electoral College loss in ’20, he would have accomplished peace in the Middle East. But of course the Nobel Peace Prize Committee beclouded itself in ’09 by preemptively awarding the prize to Obama before he had done anything at all, so naturally it didn’t award the prize to Trump.It is a fact that, with the unfortunate help of Jeff Sessions, the Hillarycrats had free run to embattle Trump with their frauds.
Perforce SCOTUS is gonna have to do some heavy lifting, and the Democrats are funding propaganda against the law by ads insinuating that any court result not unfavorable to
TrumpRepublican electoral chances would delegitimate all Republicans on SCOTUS.The underlying reality is that “campaign finance reform” law is illegitimate. CFR depends for its legitimacy on the same fatuous notion underlying the (unanimous!) NYT v. Sullivan Warren Court decision in ’64 which has inhibited libel suits ever since. That decision turned wire service journalism decisively into the Establishment in American politics. It flies in the face of antitrust law. In 1776 Adam Smith wrote that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices.”
Do journalists “meet together” much? All members of the AP, or subscribers to any other wire Service, are in continual virtual meetings with each other. The very name “Associated Press” should give everyone a clue. The business of journalism is the attracting of attention and gaining the trust of the public. ”Interesting the public” is a different thing than “the public interest.” Wave off the “campaign finance reform” laws and you wave off all those “felony counts” they tarred Trump with. And all “campaign finance reform” laws fly in the face of the rights of anyone who does not (at the moment) own a press which is enumerated in CFR law as being a legitimate press. But under 1A anyone has the right to buy a press and ink and paper - and the term press in 1A covers all electronic and digital communication as well, unless no one has a right to use such.
“No news is good news,” because good news “isn’t news.” Not counting the end of WWII - but that happened eight decades ago . . .
The result is that wire Service journalism is a trust dedicated to criticism of politicians for not helping people enough - that is to say, dedicated to leftist politics.