Colo Supremes: Insurrectionist Trump doesn’t belong in our primary

This is too easy.

July 19th, 2021; A startling share of coronavirus patients being admitted to U.K. hospitals — up to 40 percent — have been fully vaccinated. "We do expect there to be over 1,000 people per day being hospitalized with coronavirus because of the increase in infections. But the rates should be lower than they have been previously because of the protective effects of vaccination.”

Although rates should be lower considering vaccination’s “protective effects,” reality presents a much different story.

So, two days later how does Biden (and the media) handle the fact that, in many cases, Delta is finding it's way around the vaccine and is just starting to take a foothold in the U.S.?

Right off the top Don Lemon of CNN says; "Virtually, all COVID hospitalizations and deaths are now among the unvaccinated." He uses the words ALL and NOW. That was a lie. Just in Minnesota during the three weeks prior to this broadcast 22% of hospitalizations and 21% of deaths were the fully vaccinated. And it was rising because of Delta.

And Joe says; But, again, one last thing. We don't talk enough to you about this, I don't think. One last thing that's really important is, we're not in the position where we think that any virus, including the Delta virus, which is much more transmissible and more deadly in terms of unvaccinated people, the -- the various shots that people are getting now cover that. You're OK. You're not going to -- you're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.

"INCLUDING THE DELTA.....THE VARIOUS SHOTS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING NOW COVER THAT. YOUR OK. YOUR NOT GOING TO --- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET COVID IF YOU HAVE THESE VACCINATIONS"

JOE SAID IT. AND THEY KNEW DELTA WAS DANGEROUS TO THE VACCINATED. IT WAS OBVIOUS.

wallstreet

you speak the truth

whew….. now that I got that out of the way , since it seems to be a prerequisite in this forum…..

I do not like Trump . If you are okay with describing your disdain for the man a thousand different ways then I should be allowed to also divvy out my thoughts on people too right ?

And I have interest in the quality of our candidates . I try to make discussion on the topic for Christ’s sake . What do other people do ?

I’m not a Romney guy . There I said it . But just plain this time .

I don’t know if a candidate exists that can remedy the situation that we are in . Maybe it’s time to “ Thump and Bump “ that thread that has the title that pertains to that .

And how come you allow other people to disparage me with nary a glance or a murmur ?

while others get treated like Paris Hilton at a photo op with armed security ?

merry Christmas !

@Sidehatch

 Yea, Romney was the top talent of the GOP in 2012. If you don’t like him, you’re probably a braindead robot if you’re still voting Republican.

This is absolutely incorrect and very misinformed.  At no point was he the 'top talent' and was never a unifier of the Republican Party.  Many, many top Conservative pundits at the time had many, many issues with Romney.

The only thing good about Romney was he was better than Obama.

But McCain and Romney were both very subpar candidates that could not rally their own party and, thus, the reason they could not get the turnout or convert enough middle-of-the-road voters.  

Democrats will always unite behind whoever is left standing for their party; Republicans will not do this if they are left with a bland candidate.

You can easily go back and read some of things being said about him and his campaign at the time.

The Republican convention was a three-day display of what the Republican Party has become, and by the end of it, Americans viewed Romney, not just as an individual, but as the standard-bearer of his party. Only 36 percent of those who listened to or watched the Republican convention said that it made them more likely to vote for Romney, versus 46 percent less likely. As far back as 1984, there is no precedent for a convention that repels more voters than it attracts. Indeed, during the past three decades, national conventions have generated—on average—a positive response (more likely minus less likely) of 18 percentage points. So while the impact of the Democratic convention (plus 10) was below average, the Republicans managed to stage the least effective convention in modern political history.

Meanwhile, since the end of the convention, the president has run an effective and efficient campaign. He has a theory of the case and a strategy to match it. By contrast, Romney has been campaigning at a pace that can charitably be described as languid, lurching from one tactical statement to the next without a consistent theme or strategy.

And:

“Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process … He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled.”

And:

It’s an obvious frustration to Krauthammer that Romney hasn’t managed to formulate a clear case against Obama in the 2012 campaign.

Clear in his choice of words and in his ability to pinpoint the candidate’s weaknesses, Republicans have privately acknowledged for months that Lowry has been on point in his critiques of what has ailed Romney.

And yet more recently, Lowry has publicly urged Romney to base his campaign more on ideas. As a torrent of criticism opened against Romney from the right two weeks ago, Lowry told CBS: “Something like this was inevitable, but I think the thrust of the criticism is sound.”

“There’s a general sense on the right that a more substantive campaign would be better,” he said.

Of the conservative elites lamenting Romney’s shortcomings, none matches Noonan for the precision and intimacy of her criticism. In March, in the course of pondering Romney’s political sophistication, Noonan homed in on “a small but telling aspect of his public speaking style.”

“There is something strangely uninflected there. He says very different things in the same tone. ‘Pass the mustard!’ ‘This means war!’ ‘Flowers are pretty!’ ‘Don’t tread on me!’” she wrote. “It’s all the same tone, the same level of import and engagement. Which it would be if you’re sort of … well, if you see issues as entities to deploy as opposed to think about and weigh.”

More recently, Noonan bemoaned Romney’s “tendency to litter his speeches with applause lines,” warning Romney that he risks losing voters: “If all it is is applause lines, they’ll turn away.”

“When is Romney going to look like a challenger? Seems to play everything safe, make no news except burn off Hispanics,” was the warning shot Murdoch fired on his Twitter feed on June 24, followed quickly by: “Easy for Romney to spell out restoration of the American dream and bash incompetent administration. But not a word!”

“Mitt Romney’s losing at this point, in a big way,” Will said on ABC on Sunday. “Republicans have now nominated someone from the financial sector at a time when the financial sector is an extremely bad odor.”

“Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate,” Will wrote last October. “Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?”

He was critical of the GOP front-runner throughout the primary, calling for other entrants to the race such as Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels. For months, Kristol was something of a one-man public draft movement for a fleet of anyone-but-Romneys.

“Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he’s running?” Kristol wrote in blunt terms. The criticism was nothing new, but it came during a period in which open negative assessments from the right were growing.

The bottom line is:  the only good thing about Romney was that he was good for Obama and the Democrats to run against and beat. 

@Raiders22

 Yup and that kind of puts a spotlight on the GOP as to what kind of candidate they want to support and what qualities are important. Romney was not confrontational, he did not get taken to court or sleep with multiple hookers, his family companies have done well and he has no real reason to attack everyone and everything. His approach is not scorched earth and humiliate as a means to gain attention, all of your complaints listed are due to someone who is a complete opposite of your party offering this time. The top 5 GOP candidates are abrasive, abusive, in your face, conspiracy theorists who blame as a means to explain. There is zero unifying candidates in the mix and that seems to suit your party perfectly. You get a classy confident successful businessman who has strong family values, good leadership qualities and your party complains that he is not brusing up the other side, that it is required to be confrontational and destructive that your base will not find interest in a unifying candidate. Then you go and list that the DNC will do the exact opposite, they support and surround and unify what the party puts forward and then the GOP wonders why they have lost so many popular vote elections in the last 20 years.

I found Romney to be a respectful, reasonable, intelligent, successful unifying candidate he has many great qualities and very few personal offensive flaws. I just didnt care for his corporatist agenda, he is an elitist who thinks like a corporate CEO and does not align with the bulk of  American society, I dont think that the government should be led by a capitalistic corporatist but crap I would vote for him 10x over than the GOP field this time.

@wallstreetcappers

 Yes.  I do not think they liked his 'bland' attitude.  The lack of confrontation against the Democrats was the issue; the Democrats have no issue being confrontational against Conservatives.

Yes, by all accounts Romney is a good guy.

But the same as with Trump, you are not voting for a guy to have over for Sunday dinner -- you are voting for a guy that can win and be the best President.

I think a lot of folks felt justified in their beliefs against Romney -- and McCain -- after he demonstrated what they felt by how poorly he ran his campaign and performed in the debates.

Just uniting the Republicans to win their nomination is not enough.  You need to be able to convert enough of the 'swing-type' voters and be enough of a uniter to have a strong turnout for your own Party --Romney did neither -- in order to win the election against a Democrat.

For example, how many Democrats do you know that decided to 'convert' and vote for Romney -- there were plenty of reasons for him to draw some votes.  

Lackluster campaigning and messaging will not get the job done.

Good points. Romney is, at the very least, a fine, decent gentleman with the interests of his fellow Americans at heart. 

That said, *IF* republican/former GOV John Kasich was running as the 2024 GOP nominee, I would vote for him over Biden in a heartbeat!

We don't know for sure if the pro-fascist, disgusting sex-offender who dines with anti-semites & white nationalists, called our fallen soldiers "losers" and "suckers," and who stated he WOULD be a dictator,  is going to be the GOP nominee or not due to the 91 serious criminal charges he faces related to his criminal FRAUD and sedition, but if he is, then once again I will NOT vote FOR Joe Biden....

I will however cast my vote (again!) to block the boss of the trump crime family from completing his intention to turn our nation into a fascist dictatorship

@Raiders22

 I think part of the reason why the GOP wont get swing votes is because the candidates and agenda are not centered around unifying ALL the population, just to secure the GOP and the many factions which exist inside your own party. You are a collection of a variety of extremes, you have several extreme sections, the moderate centrist portion of your party is not strong enough to base platform around...a centrist like Romney is not accepted because of so many extreme segments and that does not translate to the larger population.

Most of the bulk of the US population are not religious extremists or conspiracy theorists, most people are closer suited to central moderate views and opinions. I do not believe that your party in its generalizations of the DNC bulk voters is accurate either, you portray the reason why the DNC wins popular votes because people suck off the government and take benefits and thus they vote to secure those things, I think that is a flawed inaccurate portrayal and is partly why your party does not make headway into the other party and get the fringe dem vote, you do not understand how as a party to be centrist..its either Trump extremism or religious extremism or nothing for you and that is not what the general public in bulk identifies with.

Trump was president, he stole that election with the farcical electoral college, as did the previous GOP winner. Trump made no impact during his term, he has no plan to make an impact if he were elected again and here is the reality....people DID identify with Trump, he HAD an image and a public persona prior to the previous election. His image was not as tarnished then as it is now. I had some exposure to Trump as I lived on the east coast a few times and Ive followed his companies, his tv show etc and I have to say that my impression and view of Trump BEFORE he sought election was very very very different than after. If he had sought to be a unifying candidate, if he had sought to be a leader to inspire to really make change I think he could have won the popular vote against Clinton and Biden, both DNC candidates were trash, but BOTH beat Trump on the popular vote. Trump could have taken both elections if he knew how to be a leader and to think of others than himself. Trump is not a leader, he is not inspiring he is not interested in helping the general population, he does not try to reach out to the lower income to the general citizen. Trump is only concerned with himself and what elevates his interest. He resonates with extremist and abusive annoying loud mouth voters, those who like brash attacking insulting humor. Trump's base is the fringe voter who is angry and petty and blame oriented for what is lacking in their lives, it is always the fault of someone else as to why things are difficult. Trump feeds into division and hate, he seems completely uninterested to take votes from the DNC side, he will not take dem votes unless the dem candidate is horrible or there is a third party that sucks off votes. 

Your only real hope for another Trump nuclear bomb run is if a third party enters that the dem voter wants OR some real dirt comes out on Biden, without that he will lose the popular vote again and will have to rely on the electoral college scam as the only way in.

@wallstreetcappers

 I think part of the reason why the GOP wont get swing votes is because the candidates and agenda are not centered around unifying ALL the population, just to secure the GOP and the many factions which exist inside your own party. You are a collection of a variety of extremes, you have several extreme sections, the moderate centrist portion of your party is not strong enough to base platform around...a centrist like Romney is not accepted because of so many extreme segments and that does not translate to the larger population.

Most of the bulk of the US population are not religious extremists or conspiracy theorists, most people are closer suited to central moderate views and opinions. I do not believe that your party in its generalizations of the DNC bulk voters is accurate either, you portray the reason why the DNC wins popular votes because people suck off the government and take benefits and thus they vote to secure those things, I think that is a flawed inaccurate portrayal and is partly why your party does not make headway into the other party and get the fringe dem vote, you do not understand how as a party to be centrist..its either Trump extremism or religious extremism or nothing for you and that is not what the general public in bulk identifies with.

There is no doubt that your party does better at uniting your extremes within the party, especially at the end.  I have always said that and given you guys credit for that.

The Republicans will be disillusioned and sit it out.

Interestingly enough, most folks assume 2 political parties but as, studies have shown, there are in reality about 7-11 factions.  Pew, I think it was off the top of my head, narrowed it down to 9 basic segments.  If you even look at the 'crossover' in these extremes it ends up the same as far as voter turnout.

I have always said that no matter how fractured your party seems about its candidates -- you will leave your principles aside and vote for whichever candidate your party has in the end.  You even saw this with the Sanders folks.  A lot more Republicans seem not to do that.  They are not going to unite necessarily behind a candidate just to vote 'against' someone -- whereas, your party has no problem doing this.  That is a great thing for you guys and has been working out very well and I expect it to continue.

The only way for a Republican to unite the other side enough is if the Democrat candidate puts them in a bad enough situation to scare them -- either financially or because of national security.  And I see nothing of that sort right now.

@wallstreetcappers

 Trump was president, he stole that election with the farcical electoral college, as did the previous GOP winner. Trump made no impact during his term, he has no plan to make an impact if he were elected again and here is the reality....people DID identify with Trump, he HAD an image and a public persona prior to the previous election. His image was not as tarnished then as it is now. I had some exposure to Trump as I lived on the east coast a few times and Ive followed his companies, his tv show etc and I have to say that my impression and view of Trump BEFORE he sought election was very very very different than after. If he had sought to be a unifying candidate, if he had sought to be a leader to inspire to really make change I think he could have won the popular vote against Clinton and Biden, both DNC candidates were trash, but BOTH beat Trump on the popular vote. Trump could have taken both elections if he knew how to be a leader and to think of others than himself. Trump is not a leader, he is not inspiring he is not interested in helping the general population, he does not try to reach out to the lower income to the general citizen. Trump is only concerned with himself and what elevates his interest. He resonates with extremist and abusive annoying loud mouth voters, those who like brash attacking insulting humor. Trump's base is the fringe voter who is angry and petty and blame oriented for what is lacking in their lives, it is always the fault of someone else as to why things are difficult. Trump feeds into division and hate, he seems completely uninterested to take votes from the DNC side, he will not take dem votes unless the dem candidate is horrible or there is a third party that sucks off votes. 

Yes.  A lot of the guys on your side complain about this and are perplexed about it I think.

There are several studies that break down the dynamics of why it is this way and how the campaigns are run so differently due to this.  You can look at the overwhelming amount of counties that Trump won.  You can look at the few sections of NYC that mattered and the few sections of CA.  

Obviously, especially in CA, things would be done completely differently in the states where folks of a different party felt their vote would matter more.

But very interesting reading on these things.

But when you use the word 'stole' to account for a loss or two you lose a lot of credibility and already seem unhinged with your hatred of Trump.

But the system is what it is.  Even Trump admitted he would have run a very different campaign if it had not been an electoral situation.

You certainly do not want a system where 1 or 2 major segments can 'control' the country and its politics just for self-interest.  I think your Founding Fathers did a fantastic job of checks and balances on this in many ways -- and this is just one example.  But there are even Republicans that are advocates of abandoning this now.  So, who knows. 

@Raiders22

 I say stole because I think the electoral college is a scam, if the popular vote is cancelled out from the EC it is not functioning properly. There should be a checks and balances to this scenario, it should not be that a candidate can LOSE the popular vote, WIN the EC and then WIN the election. If the purpose of the popular vote can be overridden then the system of voting and the EC needs to be modified, altered, reviewed, changed. 

I 100% disagree with the fact the EC overrides the popular vote, the implementation of the EC was at a different time of this country and it is not a realistic vehicle for our current dynamic and I have no idea why it has not been either completely abandoned or modified. Neither the popular vote OR the EC should cancel out each other, to me the only way the EC should cancel out the popular vote is if the percentage of EC is above a very high threshold, similar to a veto percentage...so say like 75%. If a candidate loses the popular vote they should be required to win the EC at 75% or higher. Anything lower it is a scam and makes a mockery of a popular vote.

So much ridiculous nonsense here. 

The phrase unhinged hate sums it up.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYBODY. 

@wallstreetcappers

 I think you are looking at it wrong.  It is not 'overriding' it as much as preventing 2-3 states from controlling the vote.  It is set up as 50/51 separate elections and not simply a popular vote.  They had good reasons for doing it this way.

It is far from a scam.  You can argue that it is outdated and does not need to be that way now.  But that is a far different discussion.

Imagine way back then if just a handful of industrial states wanted to set policy and control the many agricultural states.

Or imagine if the South had more population and wanted to set policy that could have been for a young nation.

Imagine if today TX, CA, NY, Fl decided to 'enforce' 'bad' policy on the other states, etc.

It is a very unique thing and done for unique reasons at the time.

But to say 'stole' and 'scam' is disingenuous when it is still the system and the only way to win.  I know you do not like it, because you repeatedly have said so and that is fine.  But if enough folks decide to change it soon enough I think they can do it.

But it is not a 'mockery' of the popular vote because it was absolutely not designed to be a popular vote.

@wallstreetcappers

 I do not think anyone will go for amending it to a threshold of 75% or anything.  I think if it is changed it will simply be scrapped. 

@Raiders22

 Do we hold a popular vote or not? Can it be overridden with the EC or not? I consider an override to the popular vote, it replaces the popular vote. If we as a country that elects via a popular vote, then ANYTHING that replaces it is an override. I do not recall anywhere that says our election process is two stage that one can cancel the other out, it is like a veto an override and the veto/override threshold is HIGHER than a majority. I see no reason why the EC should be any different.

I find it interesting how the GOP holds to outdated language in some aspects to our documents like the carte blanche guns and this EC, both were done under completely different circumstances. I would say that the EC serves zero purpose now, this country is open and available, industry is at all corners and places, there is no restriction or limitation based on location in this country. You are correct that it will not be removed, there is no way the GOP would ever allow it because how many elections were overturned for your party? How many elections in the 2000's were common vote wins versus EC wins?

@wallstreetcappers

 Not actually, no sir.  That is why I say it is a set of 50/51 elections -- those could be considered popular votes.  

The national election for President is not.

This a part of the reason people misunderstand and mislabel the type of govenrment in the usa.

Most folks think it is a Democracy and it is not.  It is a Representative Republic or Constitutional Republic. 

This is process is a part of that.  The Founding Fathers did not like a pure Democracy.

But there are very good writings and videos on this subject and why it is a large part of what the country ws founded as.

But -- I, for sure, understand why a lot of people no longer want it.  Like I said, there are a lot of Republicans that do not like it.

Maybe an easier way to see it is to simply put the shoe on the other foot -- maybe that would clear up the thinking behind it.

I think 'outdated language' is very subjective.

There are many examples of pure Democracies and some of the issues that they have that the folks were trying to avoid.  This is just one of those.

But if you read up on it some and try to take your own political views out of it and try to take the past elections out of it -- I think you will understand the concept better.

It is WAY more of a UNITING method than a pure Democracy would be.  Then you could just cater to a large swath of the population each time to get elected.

The way it is now you have to try to sway several, varied groups of folks.

@Raiders22

I think the purpose at the time had merit, at that time and the demographics in the country, how at that time the population grouping was very very different, the economies even from state to state were very different. That is not the case now, there is no difference in California versus New York vs St.Louis vs Phoenix vs Helena and any citizen in this country can live anywhere, open a business anywhere, have commerce the same anywhere. It is outdated and unnecessary. 

My contention as stated is if one OVERRIDES the popular vote and cancels it out there has to be a higher standard of that impact than the popular vote itself. The EC is a demographics game ploy that is used to overcome a popular vote, it is a scheme and a scam, it is outdated and is not a concept required for the election of a president. I am also not really interested in your deflection of the term democracy, there is no such thing as a literal definition of the term but you completely understand what the point is so there is no need for you to say it is a republic. The point is we hold a popular vote and that is the issue, to cancel out a majority vote is a very serious step and this EC is an outdated scheme, you cannot give a real current era validation for its purpose that isnt partisan in nature.

Romney was unprincipled ( as RAIDERS already quoted), but perhaps more important,  he was the ultimate "" corparatist"".. that guy that carried himself as an elitist,  completely unrelatable to common folks.  That ultimately proved his undoing IMO. 

Contrast that with Trump, a guy that has a tremendous ability to rally common, blue collar Americans.   He truly is,  "" the blue collar billionaire "" 

@wallstreetcappers

 Yes.  That is a lot of folk's contention.  I understand that.  

Even if the demographics are changed that does not mean that a strict divergence of some sort could not crop up in the future.

It does not matter what you think about it being a Democracy or a Republic -- it is what it is and that is how the country was founded. It is not a 'deflection' but an assertion.

That is just one of the differences as it was established; the Founders feared a true Democracy because of their history and the history of Democracies.

So, because folks do not understand the reasoning or the history -- there is absolutely a need to draw a distinction.

Of course, you can give a current reasoning and I did.  You may choose to disagree with it but it is not necessarily good for an overwhelming majority of a select group of folks in certain areas -- or even mindsets -- to determine policy.

But it is a wobbly line to draw that from what a poor candidate Romney was to the Electoral College since that did not affect his election.  

I also do not know why you constantly feel a need to drag your guy Trump into every discussion.  

I was simply replying to the guy and pointing out that Romney was not the best candidate at the time.

@Rush51

 Besides the Bain Capital issue and the healthcare issue -- what got him the most was the flip-flopping on so many issues.  McCain 'exposed' so many of these.

But when you are not a unifying candidate in your own party -- there can be no way to grab any of the other party's voters. 

Republicans keep running sub-par candidates. 

Except for Trump, right ?!  I mean, Trump is an f'n Rock Star ! 

BTW, great exchange w Wall on electoral college, republic vs. Democracy, etc.  Very well explained and agree completely.  

* I really get annoyed w people on the left that are constantly looking to change the rules when things ain't going their way ; whether it be (1)  election rules w the " electoral college" , (2) "lifetime " appointees to the Supreme Court,  or (3) just the Constitution as a document.   These are same people that refer to the Constitution as a "" living, breathing document "" , meant to change w the times.

But what the left really wants to do is win by any means necessary,  and they are willing to change the rules to accomplish that goal.  Any person that ascribes to any of these 3 position has no morals or integrity.  

@Rush51

 I agree.  One that gets me is wanting to add Supreme Court justices just when they have control -- that harkens back to FDR's strategy.

But with the Electoral College it is the same as any other issue.  People slowly get swayed -- like I said, I know a lot of Republicans that want to change it.

I think it is instinct of either party to do that sort of thing.  But the issue I have is the Democrats really want to change it to a pure Democracy.

If you are told constantly everyone can do what they want as long as it does not directly harm another -- that very surely bleeds over into policy.  Then they look at other countries and want to be exactly like them -- but they overlook those country's problems.  This is evident with same-sex marriage, abortion, transgender on kids, illegals, healthcare -- just about any issue -- so that would include the Electoral College.  People get swayed over time.  I am not saying it is always good or bad.  Simply how it happens.

Then the issue is the masses are 'controlled' by elitists and their agenda.  It can range from anything to the Global Warming Scam to illegals to thinking there are multiple genders, etc.  You very easily saw some of this with the pandemic nonsense.

There are very good reasons the Founding Fathers put the type of government in place that they did.

This is what I was referring to about Romney -- some I had completely forgotten about.

https://www.businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-dug-up-by-john-mccain-2012-1#5-on-whether-he-even-owns-a-gun-this-story-changed-within-just-a-few-days-5