JD Vance watch— does he get canned?

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

15 minutes ago, DAG said:

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.

You are quick to buy into any narrative, aren’t you?

[DAG 34,724]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

You are quick to buy into any narrative, aren’t you?

I mean, you haven't exactly helped yourself all thread at all. I would quit while I am ahead, but it is bringing me some humor laughing at the responses.

[Leftfield 3,347]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.

Don't really care about the title of the thread, as I was addressing what you wrote.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

In your eyes, can Trump get any further down?  Really?

Well, he could shoot somebody live on TV. That'd be about it.

But I was referring to his polling, which in the context of what we were talking about should have been fairly obvious.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

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

Quite often, though I also don't jump into every argument to rip on him like you do to Biden and Harris. It's no secret I think the man is one of the worst human beings I've encountered, but I've also admitted some of the (very few) things I agreed with him on. I can't remember you agreeing with a single thing Biden has done. You literally blame him for everything.

Honestly, you calling out @auburnatl1for not being objective while you thought you were is one of the funniest things I've ever seen you post. He consistently points out the flaws on both sides, while you pull at your bald spot while screaming how bad Biden/Harris are. He posts facts and makes valid arguments, you post irrational crap and dodge questions when they present any challenge to your world view.  

[Leftfield 3,347]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.

Well, when people like you label Kamala Harris a DEI hire, it's accurate. You love to point out that Biden announced he was going to hire a black woman and lament the fact that he was dismissing other demographics because it didn't allow for getting the best hire, while ignoring the fact that it implies a black woman couldn't be qualified. Can you really not see how that sounds racist?

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Honestly, you calling out @auburnatl1for not being objective while you thought you were is one of the funniest things I've ever seen you post.

When did I call out auburnatl1 for not being objective?  There you go again, making stuff up in your head.

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Can you really not see how that sounds racist?

 

 

[alanevans 254]

On 7/27/2024 at 9:10 AM, DAG said:

A couple of individuals from South Carolina I am thinking.

I think either of the senators, or the former governor from SC would bring some “lifestyle diversity “.

Not that any of them will admit to it…

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

22 minutes ago, DAG said:

I mean, you haven't exactly helped yourself all thread at all. I would quit while I am ahead, but it is bringing me some humor laughing at the responses.

That’s the game plan isn’t it.  A conservative states his views, a lib comes in with some virtuous comment and picks on a particular word or phrase the poster says and tries to drives the conservative into giving up and being quiet. 

Its a good way of holding a meaningful discussion.

[DAG 34,724]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

That’s the game plan isn’t it.  A conservative states his views, a lib comes in with some virtuous comment and picks on a particular word or phrase the poster says and tries to drives the conservative into giving up and being quiet. 

Its a good way of holding a meaningful discussion.

[Leftfield 3,347]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When did I call out auburnatl1 for not being objective?  There you go again, making stuff up in your head.

"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"

Was this not in reference to auburnatl1? You hadn't responded to anyone else in the thread before having your discussion with DAG.

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

I'll take that as a yes.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

4 minutes ago, DAG said:

Hey man, I’m still here.  Just commenting on your sticking you head in the sand on anything Kamala.

[DAG 34,724]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield 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"

Was this not in reference to auburnatl1? You hadn't responded to anyone else in the thread before having your discussion with DAG.

I'll take that as a yes.

Stop being so virtuous! [Yellow font]

[Leftfield 3,347]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That’s the game plan isn’t it.  A conservative states his views, a lib comes in with some virtuous comment and picks on a particular word or phrase the poster says and tries to drives the conservative into giving up and being quiet. 

Its a good way of holding a meaningful discussion.

Has it ever occurred to you that this happens to you so much for a reason? Or do you just see it from the same perspective as Trump: I'm fine, everyone else is persecuting me unfairly.

I mean, even from the way you described it in the sentence I highlighted you make it sound like you're being attacked for no reason. It's your "virtue signaling" argument yet again.

[DAG 34,724]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

sticking you head in the sand

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

4 hours ago, DAG said:

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. 

The original post I responded to from DAG.

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.

 

8 minutes ago, Leftfield 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"

Was this not in reference to auburnatl1? You hadn't responded to anyone else in the thread before having your discussion with DAG.

I'll take that as a yes.

With my reply to auburnatl1 the word objective or non-objective was not used.  DAG brought up the term/s.  How you then accuse me of calling out auburnatl1 about this is part of your fantasy.

[DAG 34,724]

4 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.

You are alluding to the auburnnatl1, even though you are responding to me. How is that fantasy?

Edited July 28 by DAG

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

8 minutes ago, DAG said:

Is that Kamala?  No, this is Kamala:

 

Head is sand about Kamala

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

2 minutes ago, DAG said:

You are alluding to the auburnnatl1, even though you are responding to me. How is that fantasy?

Because I didn’t all out auburnatl1 as being objective or non-objective.  I was responding to you thinking my response to him was non-objective.

[Leftfield 3,347]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The original post I responded to from DAG.

 

With my reply to auburnatl1 the word objective or non-objective was not used.  DAG brought up the term/s.  How you then accuse me of calling out auburnatl1 about this is part of your fantasy.

You were speaking about atl1 in your response to DAG. Not sure how else someone is supposed to interpret it when you say his "obvious non-objective" view. Feel free to enlighten us.

[Leftfield 3,347]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Because I didn’t all out auburnatl1 as being objective or non-objective.  I was responding to you thinking my response to him was non-objective.

And you accuse Harris of being incoherent? 🤣

[DAG 34,724]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Because I didn’t all out auburnatl1 as being objective or non-objective.  I was responding to you thinking my response to him was non-objective.

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

You were speaking about atl1 in your response to DAG. Not sure how else someone is supposed to interpret it when you say his "obvious non-objective" view. Feel free to enlighten us.

Seriously??? You tagged atl1, so why don’t you let him decide if he is obsessed or offended with this topic as you are.

[Leftfield 3,347]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Seriously??? You tagged atl1, so why don’t you let him decide if he is obsessed or offended with this topic as you are.

Oh, sorry...am I persecuting you again?

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

Just now, Leftfield said:

Oh, sorry...am I persecuting you again?

No, your just being you.

[Leftfield 3,347]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

No, your just being you.

Sick....burn?

[I_M4_AU 8,914]

Just now, Leftfield said:

Sick....burn?

Glad you think so.  You are being an ass.