Opinion: DeSantis 2024?

[Dill]

(11-03-2022, 12:57 PM)BengalYankee Wrote:

??? And now she is endorsing election deniers.

What is your point? 

[BengalYankee]

(11-04-2022, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? And now she is endorsing election deniers.

What is your point? 

Silly Dilly,

You wrote, ...

"Endorsing a candidate is ENDORSING a candidate."



Stop being hypocritical. I hate flip flopping.
I like conversing with people who when they say something they don't try to weasel out.
Tulsi was a Democrat and now she is an Independent. She can endorse anyone now. Her policies are still mostly liberal but unless she declares herself a Republican she is free to endorse anyone. 

[Dill]

(11-04-2022, 05:20 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Silly Dilly,

You wrote, ...

"Endorsing a candidate is ENDORSING a candidate."

Yes I did. What point are you unable to state out right?

Was I disputing that Gabbard endorsed a candidate?

Because if I did your photo would be proof she did.

Did you say you had some legal training, by the way? 

[BengalYankee]

(11-04-2022, 05:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes I did. What point are you unable to state out right?

Was I disputing that Gabbard endorsed a candidate?

Because if I did your photo would be proof she did.

Did you say you had some legal training, by the way? 

Yes, I have much legal training as I teach law classes on the side as an adjunct, an attorney for the government as well for my own side practice.

Class of 2000.

Your point???

[Dill]

(11-04-2022, 05:31 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Yes, I have much legal training as I teach law classes on the side as an adjunct, an attorney for the government as well for my own side practice.

Your point???

??? That's my question for you.  

What point are you not stating out right when you post images with no explanation.
Seems like that approach just creates unnecessary back and forth.


I just asked about your background because you said something to that effect earlier.
Perhaps I could ask you about how the law works in the future if questions arise.

Are you a trial lawyer who makes cases before judge and jury? 

[BengalYankee]

(11-04-2022, 05:37 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? That's my question for you.  

What point are you not stating out right when you post images with no explanation.
Seems like that approach just creates unnecessary back and forth.


I just asked about your background because you said something to that effect earlier.
Perhaps I could ask you about how the law works in the future if questions arise.

Are you a trial lawyer who makes cases before judge and jury? 

I like illustrations because it has an impact and more importantly, I don't want to bore the readers here as well as myself with boring text. 
If this site did not have Smilies[left of screen] when you compose a message or the ability to post illustrations then the membership here would go down. 

In addition, what makes this site better then the previous main Bengals forum is the ability to use youtube abd other videos. 
Ergo, I will continue to use animation in my posts and not bore everyone.   

[Dill]

(11-04-2022, 06:02 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: I like illustrations because it has an impact and more importantly, I don't want to bore the readers here as well as myself with boring text. 
If this site did not have Smilies[left of screen] when you compose a message or the ability to post illustrations then the membership here would go down. 

In addition, what makes this site better then the previous main Bengals forum is the ability to use youtube abd other videos. 
Ergo, I will continue to use animation in my posts and not bore everyone.   

Sure, pictures can help. But they can't really speak for themselves.

So I still don't know what an image of Tulsi endorsing Biden has to do
with Tulsi endorsing election deniers. 

[samhain]

Tulsi is a very vocal and visible lightweight. She represents a weak state, electorally and has never run in a national election with legitimate or credible likelihood of winning. She's sometimes interesting and does a lot of podcast interviews, but that's about it. She's also been a Putin apologist for a while now. Undermining the current administration and criticizing Biden is exactly what Vlad would want.

She's basically a less insane, less consequential Mike Flynn at this point. She will change her stripes to suit the needs of her public profile.
She's always had fans on the right, so this is a maneuver that she probably thinks is pretty shrewd. Going full MAGA has worked for Candace Owens, Kari Lake, and Mike Flynn, so who's Tulsi to be denied the benefit of leaning in to the crazy? All the best to her.

[samhain]

As for the original intent of this thread, I think it's looking more and more like a non-starter.

Trump is most certainly running and he will be emboldened by MAGA legislators if/when they win this Tuesday. He's not going tp take it easy on DeSantis.

Ideology is a major thing in the MAGA movement, but that's kind of the rub. Trump has no real ideology. His only motivation is self preservation/glorification. He's not in it for the Republican Party or even the MAGA crazies. He will run over Ron DeSantis like a dead dog in the road and his supporters will praise him for it. It will be Ted Cruz 2.0.

It's like Walter White said. DeSantis is New Coke and Trump is Coke Classic. No Maga cultist is picking the imitation over the real thing so long as it's on the shelf.

Party leaders surely will favor Ron, but they will face fierce retribution from the MTG crowd in the House. A pragmatist views DeSantis as a shoe-in 2024 candidate. He's all of the authoritarian nationalism with none of the baggage. He will smoke whatever sacrificial lamb the Dems trot out, and it won't be all that close. He's also much more predictable and guys like McConnell will seem him as a better tool to shape the GOP agenda.

Trump is plenty capable of winning in 24, but IMO is much less of a sure thing. He's the most polarizing political figure in modern US history. he may be indicted soon. He's completely uncontrollable by any surrogate, party elder, lawyer, or donor. He's the only person in America that can feasibly give power back to the Democrats. His candidacy gives them a chance. He got his ass handed to him in the 2018 midterms and got beat by a dead guy in the 2020 general. He sucks out loud at stumping for anyone other than himself. Now there's even more hanging around his neck.

I am not real high on the direction this nation is headed in. I hope the MAGA crowd doesn't put my family in some kind of re-education camp or some such shit. That said, it's going to be entertaining if nothing else.

[BengalYankee]

(11-04-2022, 07:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, pictures can help. But they can't really speak for themselves.

So I still don't know what an image of Tulsi endorsing Biden has to do
with Tulsi endorsing election deniers. 

Silly Dilly,

You're the one harping about endorsements.
Now you are talking like a hypocritical politician.
When you are dealing with me please have an intelligent conversation and be consistent.
Don't whine about endorsements and when I bring you two endorsements with then-Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.
Now she is not a Democrat and can endorse anyone she likes.
Again, don't be stupid. It was YOUR words about endorsements and when I bring up facts of her endorsing Democrats, you get dumb.
Stop it!!!

[Dill]

(11-06-2022, 05:42 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: Silly Dilly,

You're the one harping about endorsements.
Now you are talking like a hypocritical politician.
When you are dealing with me please have an intelligent conversation and be consistent.
Don't whine about endorsements and when I bring you two endorsements with then-Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.
Now she is not a Democrat and can endorse anyone she likes.
Again, don't be stupid. It was YOUR words about endorsements and when I bring up facts of her endorsing Democrats, you get dumb.
Stop it!!!

Maybe ease up on the personal attacks/childish nicknames while demanding "intelligent conversation," ok? 
Don't want to see another thread full of interesting discussion yanked from the record.

Yes Tulsi can endorse anyone she likes. Isn't that the point? She chooses to endorse people quite at odds with Dem positions--and reality--starting with election denial. 

You seem to think it "stupid" and a total side track to conclude she agrees with the people (and their positions) whom she endorses. If she does not, why is she endorsing them? 

And you respond as if I were arguing that Gabbard shouldn't endorse anyone, as if endorsing were the problem, not WHAT is endorsed. But WHAT is endorsed IS the issue, and that's why I can complain about the endorsement of election deniers without becoming a "hypocrite." 

Missing my point altogether, you jump to "prove" that she endorsed Bernie and Biden too--and further emphasize the 180 degree turn she is making now. 

PS you haven't answered my question about election denial yet, have you? Did Biden win the 2020 election legitimately? 

[BengalYankee]

(11-06-2022, 12:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Maybe ease up on the personal attacks/childish nicknames while demanding "intelligent conversation," ok? 
Don't want to see another thread full of interesting discussion yanked from the record.

Yes Tulsi can endorse anyone she likes. Isn't that the point? She chooses to endorse people quite at odds with Dem positions--and reality--starting with election denial. 

You seem to think it "stupid" and a total side track to conclude she agrees with the people (and their positions) whom she endorses. If she does not, why is she endorsing them? 

And you respond as if I were arguing that Gabbard shouldn't endorse anyone, as if endorsing were the problem, not WHAT is endorsed. But WHAT is endorsed IS the issue, and that's why I can complain about the endorsement of election deniers without becoming a "hypocrite." 

Missing my point altogether, you jump to "prove" that she endorsed Bernie and Biden too--and further emphasize the 180 degree turn she is making now. 

PS you haven't answered my question about election denial yet, have you? Did Biden win the 2020 election legitimately? 

Do you think Silly Dilly is a personal attack? Very sensitive me thinks.  

You asked a silly question "what is my point" after whining about endorsements, then I post endorsements and you flip flop.

Enough!!!  I asked you for an intelligent conversation dealing with Tulsi's policies and instead of naming me the policies, you whine and change the subject.

One thing that I do is stick with an issue and what you do is pushing red herrings.  

Good bye. 

[BigPapaKain]

So apparently some in the GoP are mad at Trump for speaking ill of DeSantis.

Since this was supposed to be about DeSantis and not Tulsi, who has her own damn topic y'all can have a pissing contest in.

[Dill]

(11-06-2022, 06:57 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Do you think Silly Dilly is a personal attack? Very sensitive me thinks.  

Calling me a "liar"" and implying or stating outright than I am stupid and unintelligent is a personal attack yes.

And very odd too, given I'm not the one dodging uncomfortable facts about his favored politician.

(11-06-2022, 06:57 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: You asked a silly question "what is my point" after whining about endorsements, then I post endorsements and you flip flop.

I said Gabbard endorses election deniers, and the politics that go with them. 

I'm not "flip flopping" if I acknowledge she previously endorsed Bernie/Biden
and has now herself flip flopped by endorsing their opponents. 

Those endorsements make my case--she is unstable, fickle, lacking integrity,
with no secure grasp of political/legal reality.

There's no "flip flop" unless I now claim she didn't endorse election deniers.

Which I am NOT claiming.

[Dill]

(11-06-2022, 06:57 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Enough!!!  I asked you for an intelligent conversation dealing with Tulsi's policies and instead of naming me the policies, you whine and change the subject.

One thing that I do is stick with an issue and what you do is pushing red herrings.  

Good bye. 

Seems like you stick with a misreading. But in an open forum you don't get to unilaterally decide where discussion goes or does not go. Your only option is to face the facts about your candidate--or run from them crying "red herring." 

Can't stop you from running. But I can make clear why you are.

We don't know what all Gabbard's "policies" are now because her politics are shifting.

We do know she thinks the Dems "weaponized" the DoJ, and that is one reason she chooses election deniers over people who would hold them accountable. That accountability she frames as an elitist restriction of free speech backed by the FBI.

The "red herring" now is posting statements articulated years ago, when she was still endorsing reasonable candidates, as if those can reliably represent her current "policies."  Does she still support a right to abortion if she endorses politicians who will deny that right? Will those election deniers back her call for a ban on assault weapons, or make sure that never happens? 

You want to minimize her colossal bad judgment and make her out as a normal, balanced politician with some policies favorable to both sides, but she is not "balanced" if she thinks that an FBI raid to retrieve stolen documents was Biden-directed persecution aimed at shutting down dissent.    Or perhaps you don't think her judgment is bad at all. You still haven't told me whether you think Biden was legitimately elected.

Here is a current Gabbard "policy" we do know: Aligning with Putin's rationale for war, she states that Ukraine is not really a democracy and so not worth defending. Biden is a "warmonger" for doing so. That would guide her voting if she were in Congress now, wouldn't it?  

Let's see if you discuss that policy. If you can't, then you were never really interested in her policies; 

rather, you were just trying to minimize the damage. 

[Dill]

(11-06-2022, 08:28 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So apparently some in the GoP are mad at Trump for speaking ill of DeSantis.

Since this was supposed to be about DeSantis and not Tulsi, who has her own damn topic y'all can have a pissing contest in.

Well this "pissing contest" arose when someone mentioned the possibility of a DeSantis/Gabbard ticket. 

[kalibengal]

(11-04-2022, 05:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes I did. What point are you unable to state out right?

Was I disputing that Gabbard endorsed a candidate?

Because if I did your photo would be proof she did.

Did you say you had some legal training, by the way? 

she sounds bi polar..I have a friend that would love her

[SunsetBengal]

(11-04-2022, 07:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, pictures can help. But they can't really speak for themselves.

So I still don't know what an image of Tulsi endorsing Biden has to do
with Tulsi endorsing election deniers. 

Oh, come now.  Surely a person of your obviously superior intellect understood what Fred Barnard was getting at when he first opined "One look is worth a thousand words".

[GMDino]

I can't share the ad, I throw up in my mouth every time I see it.

A striking thing about the anger from some R quarters about Trump calling DeSantis, who released an ad describing himself as created by God as a fighter, "DeSanctimonious:" some of those same folks were fairly quiet when Trump's supporters were chanting "Hang Mike Pence."

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 7, 2022

 

[Dill]

(11-07-2022, 11:38 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Oh, come now.  Surely a person of your obviously superior intellect understood what Fred Barnard was getting at when he first opined "One look is worth a thousand words".