Opinion: DeSantis 2024?

[Dill]

(04-06-2023, 05:21 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: I am not going to fall in the trap and speak highly of Trump. Nor am I going to speak lowly of him.
If you don't think the media, academia and celebrities were against him you are blind and we need not no longer communicate.
My issue is your cowardice in finding issues where Tulsi did a 180 degree turn.
You talk about who Tulsi endorsed while she was an Independent.
You sneakily fail to talk about Liz Cheny who is a Republican, but endorsed Democrats during the mid-term.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/11/liz-cheney-just-endorsed-another-democrat/
I guess you are one of your hypocrite friends will spin this as usual. 
P.S. Here are the Democrats the Cheny the "Republican" endorsed.
Let the spin begin...

More red herrings.

Looks like you are not going to "fall into my trap" by acknowledging Trump misgovernance actually explaining why Tulsi Gabbard would support Republicans who negate the policy positions you claim she endorses while imputing Trump-level misgovernance to Biden. 

I have never disputed that "media, academia and celebrities" were against Trump, though of course that is not the issue here.
All people who recognized his incompetence, vulgarity, anti-democratic governance were "against Trump." Weak as that opposition has been, it is a sign of democratic health. They should have been against him--though unfortunately all were not, e.g., Fox News helped spread the Big Lie, even though they knew it was a lie. 

Nothing "sneaky" about failing to mention Cheney.  You don't have to "prove" that she endorsed Dems. Of course she did, knowing it meant the end of her office--because doing what was right was more important. 

Trump was breaking the law and she knew his own party needed to stand up to him, as they did to Nixon. She put country, and her own job, above party. 

The danger was clear to all who acknowledge that Trump's extreme partisanship wasn't simply limited to rally rhetoric ("locker her up,""Jail Kerry"), but drove him to select staff and cabinet members who would protect him first, and do his bidding regardless of law. And finally helped him in an attempted coup.

Gabbard, on the other hand, just endorses the new Big Lie that it is Biden who weaponizes government. If widely believed, that would put
Trump back into power, with all the lessons learned about how to get away with breaking laws. Were the facts otherwise, if Biden
really were the threat, not a resurgent Trump, then I would say that Gabbard too was putting country over party. 

Again, it comes down to the facts of Trump misgovernance, which you won't acknowledge, characterizing the recognition of fact as a "trap" you won't fall into.

So you don't address the fact of misgovernance, and you don't answer my question about Tulsi; 
instead you throw out red herrings (What about Lynn Cheney?!") while accusing me of "spin," "cowardice," and "lying," and 
threaten to stop communicating with me if I don't admit to things never disputed and not under question. 

If you decide that I can't be communicated with, while I shower you with facts of Trump governance and foreground the 
implications of Gabbard's choices, even as you ignore my questions, that can only mean that you want dearly held beliefs 
about Trump misgovernance and Gabbard's judgement protected from cross examination.  You'll call me "coward"
as you run from it.