I agree. Reminds me of the weird things I've heard Megan Kelly saying lately about voting for Trump despite thinking he tried to subvert the election because he didn't actually succeed.
I agree. Reminds me of the weird things I've heard Megan Kelly saying lately about voting for Trump despite thinking he tried to subvert the election because he didn't actually succeed.
Exactly - what sort of rationale is "well he was too incompetent to live up to his corrupt and fascist promises and he was thwarted when he tried by actual ethical grown ups around him" to vote for him again, while the the entire second part of that sentence actively being planned for to cut out in a putative second term. At best, they're voting for his likely incompetence again which is hardly the flex they want it to be, otherwise they're actively ignoring Project 2025 and his now total takeover of the Republican institutional apparatus and how much has changed since even November 2020. In 2016, he was much more supplicant to institutional leaders on his staffing appointments and choices, in 2024 he's in full command of their show. There's no "happy revisionist" take of Trump's first term that predicts the second, and yet that's the most common "apology" framed by the supposed grown ups left in the GOP for continuing to support him.
Actually, I think that is a totally valid rationale in the circumstances. I didn't vote for him in 2016, but one of my thoughts on the topic at the time was "Trump may be crooked in business, but Hillary is rather accomplished at evading responsibility in the political arena." For example, how would ANY other administration have dealt with the aftermath of the call to Ukraine that resulted in Trump's impeachment? He never denied it happened, and released the transcript within a few days. Whatever one might think of the call itself, it's pretty clear that the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations were not nearly so "transparent." (You might remember the White House Press Corp erupting in laughter when the press secretary claimed Obama was the "most transparent ever."
I agree. Reminds me of the weird things I've heard Megan Kelly saying lately about voting for Trump despite thinking he tried to subvert the election because he didn't actually succeed.
Exactly - what sort of rationale is "well he was too incompetent to live up to his corrupt and fascist promises and he was thwarted when he tried by actual ethical grown ups around him" to vote for him again, while the the entire second part of that sentence actively being planned for to cut out in a putative second term. At best, they're voting for his likely incompetence again which is hardly the flex they want it to be, otherwise they're actively ignoring Project 2025 and his now total takeover of the Republican institutional apparatus and how much has changed since even November 2020. In 2016, he was much more supplicant to institutional leaders on his staffing appointments and choices, in 2024 he's in full command of their show. There's no "happy revisionist" take of Trump's first term that predicts the second, and yet that's the most common "apology" framed by the supposed grown ups left in the GOP for continuing to support him.
Actually, I think that is a totally valid rationale in the circumstances. I didn't vote for him in 2016, but one of my thoughts on the topic at the time was "Trump may be crooked in business, but Hillary is rather accomplished at evading responsibility in the political arena." For example, how would ANY other administration have dealt with the aftermath of the call to Ukraine that resulted in Trump's impeachment? He never denied it happened, and released the transcript within a few days. Whatever one might think of the call itself, it's pretty clear that the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations were not nearly so "transparent." (You might remember the White House Press Corp erupting in laughter when the press secretary claimed Obama was the "most transparent ever."