JD Vance watch— does he get canned?

[DAG 34,724]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you have to comment when I post these things?

Yes it’s a discussion board, no? I think the point is to look at things from a semi-objective view regardless of candidacy. I certainly don’t think Kamala is perfect and she absolutely has work to do, but you can acknowledge Trump’s current VP also has obvious shortcomings as well. 

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

18 minutes ago, DAG said:

Yes it’s a discussion board

That was my point to him.  I reply to his obvious non-objective view and he points out he thought I have a non-objective view.  It is what it is.

20 minutes ago, DAG said:

I certainly don’t think Kamala is perfect and she absolutely has work to do, but you can acknowledge Trump’s current VP also has obvious shortcomings as well. 

There is no perfect candidate.  I don’t have to point out J.D. Vance’s short comings as there is an overwhelming view that he was not a good pick by the participants of this board.  I pointed out that Vance was a pick Trump made probably because Trump didn’t want to pick a *woke* VP as it was not his agenda to go *woke* just for appearance sake.

Does Vance pose a risk for Trump?  Probably, especially to the left of our society who is not going to vote for Trump no matter who he picks to be VP.

I actually believe I was objective, he just jumped to set the narrative that you bought hook, line and sinker.

[DAG 34,724]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

That was my point to him.  I reply to his obvious non-objective view and he points out he thought I have a non-objective view.  It is what it is.

There is no perfect candidate.  I don’t have to point out J.D. Vance’s short comings as there is an overwhelming view that he was not a good pick by the participants of this board.  I pointed out that Vance was a pick Trump made probably because Trump didn’t want to pick a *woke* VP as it was not his agenda to go *woke* just for appearance sake.

Does Vance pose a risk for Trump?  Probably, especially to the left of our society who is not going to vote for Trump no matter who he picks to be VP.

I actually believe I was objective, he just jumped to set the narrative that you bought hook, line and sinker.

Haha ok guy. Well people are going to respond, if you are going to post your “objective” views as such. I would hardly call this post objective btw. But whatever , do you. 
 

The left has nothing to do with JD Vance’s comment. He just comes off as a prick, no matter what party he resented,  and the fact that you can’t acknowledge speaks volume. 

Edited July 28 by DAG

[DKW 86 7,892]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

It’s a reflection of who we ultimately are, unfortunately. He’s a troglodyte’s idea of a manly man, and a loser’s idea of a successful businessman. 

But hey, like all 21st Century Con men, he wrote a book and someone in Hollyweird made it into TV or a movie.

Kinda sounds like trump...

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

12 minutes ago, DAG said:

Haha ok guy. Well people are going to respond, if you are going to post your “objective” views as such. I would hardly call this post objective btw. But whatever , do you. 
 

The left has nothing to do with JE Vance’s comment. He just comes off as a prick, no matter what party he resented,  and the fact that you can’t acknowledge speaks volume. 

Do you think the OP was an objective view of the subject matter? or did it set the tone and everybody, but me, followed the lead?  I, at least, gave people something to think about other that J.D. Vance should be replaced.

What VP candidate that Trump would have picked would not come under scrutiny?  Harris’ VP pick will come under the same scrutiny and I look forward to your objective views

[homersapien 12,215]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Republicans now use "DEI" as racist dog whistle.

 

Need examples Son of a.....?

Just search "Republicans use of DEI"

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

3 hours ago, alanevans said:

Well, sometimes he does bring up transgenders and sex changes…

 

 

[DAG 34,724]

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you think the OP was an objective view of the subject matter? or did it set the tone and everybody, but me, followed the lead?  I, at least, gave people something to think about other that J.D. Vance should be replaced.

What VP candidate that Trump would have picked would not come under scrutiny?  Harris’ VP pick will come under the same scrutiny and I look forward to your objective views

Seeing as I’ve already called out the democrats and anybody else on here who tried to gaslight people into believing Biden was a qualified candidate and scrutinized it the moment I got on this forum haha. You came to a JD Vance thread about his behavior , went full on apologetic mode and has the Pikachu face when people question your responses to it.  Not too mention I’ve already critiqued Kamala Harris and depending on her VP pick , which will probably be a “safe” one, I will be sure to have an opinion on that too. 

Edited July 28 by DAG

[alanevans 254]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

Now that I found out that you’re a parody I can enjoy your posts

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

3 minutes ago, DAG said:

Seeing as I’ve already called out the democrats and anybody else on here who tried to gaslight people into believing Biden was a qualified candidate and scrutinized it the moment I got on this forum haha

I must have missed those posts of you calling out the Dems, sorry.

4 minutes ago, DAG said:

You came to a JD Vance thread about his behavior , with full on apologetic mode and have the Pikachu face when people question your responses to it. 

The thread is about him being replaced.  I didn’t apologize for him or the fact he was chosen.  I didn’t say a word about him, acutally.  I just gave a reason why he was chosen by Trump.  Where do you come with this?

[DAG 34,724]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I must have missed those posts of you calling out the Dems, sorry.

The thread is about him being replaced.  I didn’t apologize for him or the fact he was chosen.  I didn’t say a word about him, acutally.  I just gave a reason why he was chosen by Trump.  Where do you come with this?

The thread is not about “why trump picked him”

That is not the point of the thread lol and honestly who cares? That doesn’t change the theme of the thread.
 

It seems to be allude to the assumption that this person behavior is so ridiculous that even presumably Trump might say I made a mistake (which is telling) and you can’t even acknowledge that. Instead , you deflect and throw shots at the other side. That is what good bit of people on this thread is getting at, yet you can’t comprehend this simple fact. At this point, we are going full circle now , so I don’t even want to bog this thread anymore with rebuttals to you. You can have it. 

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

6 minutes ago, DAG said:

It seems to be allude to the assumption that this person behavior is so ridiculous that even presumably Trump might say I made a mistake (which is telling) and you can’t even acknowledge that. Instead , you deflect and throw shots at the other side. That is what good bit of people on this thread is getting at, yet you can’t comprehend this simple fact. At this point, we are going full circle now , so I don’t even want to bog this thread anymore with rebuttals to you. You can have it. 

Do you really think Trump is considering replacing Vance?  That would be a lefty wet dream.  I will always take a shot at Joe, Kamala and the Dems when I get a chance.  It is a given.  live and learn.

[Leftfield 3,347]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you really think Trump is considering replacing Vance?  That would be a lefty wet dream. 

What are you smokin'? I want him right where he is. Dude's a grease fire and is dragging Trump even further down.

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I will always take a shot at Joe, Kamala and the Dems when I get a chance.  It is a given.  live and learn.

As objective people are wont  to do, right?

[DAG 34,724]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you really think Trump is considering replacing Vance?  That would be a lefty wet dream.  I will always take a shot at Joe, Kamala and the Dems when I get a chance.  It is a given.  live and learn.

I mean him staying actually works for the dems just like if Biden was still the candidate for the Dems, they would have little to no chance. I still think even with Kamala Trump has a lead despite what the polls say, but come debate time…whoa nelly.

Edited July 28 by DAG

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

29 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

What are you smokin'? I want him right where he is. Dude's a grease fire and is dragging Trump even further down.

Read the title of the thread.  If Trump goes back on Vance then he would have capitulated to the left and the left would *pounce* on that with both feet.  In your eyes, can Trump get any further down?  Really?

 

33 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

As objective people are wont  to do, right?

When have you been objective when it comes to Trump?  Pitiful.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

31 minutes ago, DAG said:

I mean him staying actually works for the dems just like if Biden was still the candidate for the Dems, they would have little to no chance. I still think even with Kamala Trump has a lead despite what the polls say, but come debate time…whoa nelly.

I believe a debate would end up different than you expect. JMO of course

[DAG 34,724]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe a debate would end up different than you expect. JMO of course

If they stood to the topic and substance , which I stated in other threads , that surely can hurt Kamala. If they are talking about DEI hires, sexualizing her, etc I don’t think it will go well at all for Trump. 

[AuCivilEng1 12,082]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I pointed out that Vance was a pick Trump made probably because Trump didn’t want to pick a *woke* VP as it was not his agenda to go *woke* just for appearance sake.

Hmmm. This part interested me. Let’s see…So we know that there are no liberal republicans that Trump could choose from. They don’t exist. So what could “woke” mean? 
 

You gave the whole thing away, bud. Woke means black and female, doesn’t it?! 
 

So anytime these jacka**es start screaming “end wokeism”  and claim that they’re anti woke, we all know what it means. 
 

You ran your mouth a little too much. Trump and DeSantis would be ashamed of you.

Edited July 28 by AuCivilEng1

[alanevans 254]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Hmmm. This part interested me. Let’s see…So we know that there are no liberal republicans that Trump could choose from. They don’t exist. So what could “woke” mean? 
 

You gave the whole thing away, bud. Woke means black and female, doesn’t it?! 
 

So anytime these jacka**es start screaming “end wokeism”  and claim that they’re anti woke, we all know what it means. 
 

You ran your mouth a little too much. Trump and DeSantis would be ashamed of you.

It’s a parody…,IM is playing the part of the worst MAGA person on earth.

S/he does it pretty well, don’t you think?

[AuCivilEng1 12,082]

5 minutes ago, DAG said:

If they stood to the topic and substance , which I stated in other threads , that surely can hurt Kamala. 

Pshh. She’d wipe the floor with his a** on substance and policy too. He’s an idiot. He doesn’t know sh*t about sh*t. Lol. He doesn’t have the ability to discuss policy, because he has no policy. His whole game is “the country is in despair”. 

[AuCivilEng1 12,082]

1 minute ago, alanevans said:

It’s a parody…,IM is playing the part of the worst MAGA person on earth.

S/he does it pretty well, don’t you think?

Their whole thing is that they filter their racism and misogyny so that it makes it hard to call them out on it. But he sucks a** at it😂😂😂

He’s like the JD Vance of MAGA freaks. Always a few steps behind where he needs to be.

[AuCivilEng1 12,082]

Man it’s craaaaazy to me that the MAGA crowd thing Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Byron Donalds are “woke”.

[DAG 34,724]

28 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Man it’s craaaaazy to me that the MAGA crowd thing Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Byron Donalds are “woke”.

Yeah, I had no clue what he was alluding to. Tim Scott is far, far, far from "woke." Nikki was closer to a "maverick" than anything until she completely did a 180 on her stance.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

50 minutes ago, DAG said:

If they stood to the topic and substance , which I stated in other threads , that surely can hurt Kamala. If they are talking about DEI hires, sexualizing her, etc I don’t think it will go well at all for Trump. 

I think the Dems have successfully labeled anything DEI as racist, misogynist or whatever so I believe he would stay away from the term and concentrate on her record as DA, AG and VP.  It is a target rich environment.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

50 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Hmmm. This part interested me. Let’s see…So we know that there are no liberal republicans that Trump could choose from. They don’t exist. So what could “woke” mean? 
 

You gave the whole thing away, bud. Woke means black and female, doesn’t it?! 
 

So anytime these jacka**es start screaming “end wokeism”  and claim that they’re anti woke, we all know what it means. 
 

You ran your mouth a little too much. Trump and DeSantis would be ashamed of you.

Your ability to totally miss any point is intact.  In my original statement I referred to the *appearance* of being woke to pick a VP.  Of course that was my opinion, why he actually picked J.D. other than what he said is up for speculation as we have seen in this thread.

Again with the totally missing the point.  What you interpret as woke is not limited to black and female.  I’m sure there are a lot of both that do not agree with the *woke* agenda.