The Pivot

[TexasTiger 12,828]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jd-vance-endorsed-trump-snubs-him-ohio-senate-victory-speech

[homersapien 11,362]

Well, no one said he's stupid..... just an opportunist with no principles or moral backbone. 

He'll fit right in with McConnell.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, no one said he's stupid..... just an opportunist with no principles or moral backbone. 

He'll fit right in with McConnell.

Missed on this statement.  McConnell is a never Trumper and didn’t finance any of Trump’s hand picked candidates.  J.D. Vance won because he is a good candidate and he has more backbone by not giving Trump credit.

Are you saying he would have more principles and backbone if he kowtowed to Trump’s bluster?

[CoffeeTiger 5,098]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Missed on this statement.  McConnell is a never Trumper and didn’t finance any of Trump’s hand picked candidates.  J.D. Vance won because he is a good candidate and he has more backbone by not giving Trump credit.

Are you saying he would have more principles and backbone if he kowtowed to Trump’s bluster?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mcconnells-pacs-spend-millions-to-bail-out-trumps-candidates/

 

-----------------------------------

 

J.D. Vance flip-flops on various issues depending on what he thinks is more popular view to have at any given moment

On Trump in particular, Vance hated Trump in 2015-2016 and was thought the man was terrible. Once Trump got elected and became the most popular man in the Republican party, Vance changed his mind, deleted his past anti-Trump social media postings and apologized for ever insulting Trump and became one of his biggest supporters. 

Now that Trump is fading and Republicans are starting to blame him for losses, J.D. is now cooling on Trump also. I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually picks up his old, original views and starts becoming hostile to Trump again. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mcconnells-pacs-spend-millions-to-bail-out-trumps-candidates/

 

-----------------------------------

 

J.D. Vance flip-flops on various issues depending on what he thinks is more popular view to have at any given moment

On Trump in particular, Vance hated Trump in 2015-2016 and was thought the man was terrible. Once Trump got elected and became the most popular man in the Republican party, Vance changed his mind, deleted his past anti-Trump social media postings and apologized for ever insulting Trump and became one of his biggest supporters. 

Now that Trump is fading and Republicans are starting to blame him for losses, J.D. is now cooling on Trump also. I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually picks up his old, original views and starts becoming hostile to Trump again. 

 

 

I hope so.  Are you saying no one has ever changed their minds from one time period to the other after they read the tea leaves?  Is it better to get it right or stick your head where the sun don’t shine?

Are you like homer and think he should kowtow to Trump?

[AUDub 11,147]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Are you like homer and think he should kowtow to Trump?

He's an opportunist. 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

He's an opportunist. 

Who in politics isn’t?  Do you think Biden is not?  Didn’t he sponsor the Crime Control Act of 1990?

[AUDub 11,147]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who in politics isn’t?  Do you think Biden is not?

Pretty much all of them are to a degree. Some are worse than others though, and Vance is one of the bad ones.

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Didn’t he sponsor the Crime Control Act of 1990?

He sponsored a lot of crime bills, the big one being 1994. 

Biden in that era truly was a nut when it came to crime bills. Thing is so was everyone else.

I think Biden truly has moderated a bit on some of his old extremes though. 30 years is a long time. 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Pretty much all of them are to a degree. Some are worse than others though, and Vance is one of the bad ones.

He’s a rookie, he will learn.  I would prefer him to stand up to Trump now as he has six years in the Senate and can be a voice against Trump’s run for another presidency.

 

[AUDub 11,147]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He’s a rookie, he will learn.  I would prefer him to stand up to Trump now as he has six years in the Senate and can be a voice against Trump’s run for another presidency.

 

He'll glom onto whoever's running the show. Republicans in the McConnell era rarely break rank. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

He'll glom onto whoever's running the show. Republicans in the McConnell era rarely break rank. 

He will likely do whatever Peter Thiel tells him to do.

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I hope so.  Are you saying no one has ever changed their minds from one time period to the other after they read the tea leaves?  Is it better to get it right or stick your head where the sun don’t shine?

Are you like homer and think he should kowtow to Trump?

WTF are you talking about? 

Where did I suggest such a thing? 

Edited November 10, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

He'll glom onto whoever's running the show. Republicans in the McConnell era rarely break rank. 

McConnell is not a Trumper and you have a problem with this?  You are sending mixed messages, or do you want the Republicans to stick with Trump?  I can see that as anyone else maybe a threat to Joe.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

WTF are you talking about? 

Where did I suggest such a thing? 

You were ragging on Vance and I asked if you wanted him to kowtow to Trump.  You have yet to answer and gave me a face palm so I know you read it.  You don’t have to answer, I think I know your thoughts.

[Didba 5,256]

49 minutes ago, homersapien said:

WTF are you talking about? 

Where did I suggest such a thing? 

People on this site will take your words and twist them around to say you implied something that you never explicitly said by assuming your intent. 

For example, Mikey and au-24 did it to me yesterday in the Gus thread on the rivals forum:

I commented: "Lot of UCF fans in this thread.  Harsin wasn't the answer but you are crazy if you think retaining Gus was fine." 

Not implying anyone in that thread, not replying to anyone in the thread, nor did I even @ anyone in the thread, I was just talking about Auburn fans generally.

Mikey replied with "Please quote the post in this thread where someone said that retaining Gus would have been fine... Now, back up your claim and post where somebody said retaining Gus would have been fine."

After I asked au-24 to quote where I explicitly said what Mikey was claiming I did, 24 responded with:

"Here ya go:

"Lot of UCF fans in this thread.  Harsin wasn't the answer but you are crazy if you think retaining Gus was fine.""

 

So you see people love to imply meanings from posts to fit their preconceived narratives of different posters they have problems with. Mikey and 24 hate me because I have called them on their Gus loving BS many times. Just like some in this political forum hate me for correcting their erroneous claims because I know more than they do about politics and legal issues.

 

And holy crap, M4's response to you, just now, literally reinforces the point I was making. Assumptions and implications to twist words in an attempt to win "debates" on this forum. Wild.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Didba

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

18 hours ago, Didba said:

And holy crap, M4's response to you, just now, literally reinforces the point I was making. Assumptions and implications to twist words in an attempt to win "debates" on this forum. Wild.

Homer is the worst at assumption and implications on the political forum.  He continually twists and misquotes to make  people to reinforce his POV.  You are way off, as usual.

[homersapien 11,362]

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You were ragging on Vance and I asked if you wanted him to kowtow to Trump.  You have yet to answer and gave me a face palm so I know you read it.  You don’t have to answer, I think I know your thoughts.

My ignoring a stupid question doesn't give you license to make up things and claim I said them.

I'd ignore you all together except you make such an excellent foil.

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,362]

53 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Homer is the worst at assumption and implications on the political forum.  He continually twists and misquotes to make  people to reinforce his POV.  You are way off, as usual.

See?   You just made up something - claim that's what I think - and now you write something like that. 

This is a written forum.  You can't get away with that sort of disingenuous BS - there's a written record.

You are an idiot.  A hypocritical idiot. 

 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Homer is the worst at assumption and implications on the political forum.  He continually twists and misquotes to make  people to reinforce his POV.  You are way off, as usual.

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You don’t have to answer, I think I know your thoughts.

No, I am spot on.  See the above underlined quote.

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

36 minutes ago, Didba said:

No, I am spot on.  See the above underlined quote.

I sometimes fall in that trap and yet I didn’t publicly state what I believe he would think.  Homer, on the other hand, can’t help himself.

Your example of Mikey and 24 is not the same.