Domspeak Forums Discussions Off Topic & Politics Vance's Liabilities

It is being reported that he described masturbating in an odd and creative way in his book. Most men in politics or, any walk of life, have probably done some crazy sexual things while alone. That gets a big so what from me. But, detailing it in a book? Poor, poor judgement. If he actually put that out there, how could the Trump campaign not have found this in the vetting process and decided it would be too much of a sideshow distraction.

His comments about the quality of women's lives if they don't have children were unnecessary. His pro family point could have been much better made. Some couples choose not to have children and some can't. It was not only wrong to make it sound as if a woman's life is meaningless without becoming a mother, it was stupid. The last thing people who don't want to be parents can do is to have children out of social pressure. The last thing that a political candidate can do is hand the other side ammunition.

Schumer calling for Trump to replace Vance rings hollow after his party covered for a senile man fumbling through running our country. I will agree that Vance is turning out to be a bad choice. But, Trump's stuck with him now or so it seems.

I didn't want Vance from the beginning....Not because of his book admission (which I didn't know about until you just posted it) but because of the shit he said about Trump....

I mean he said some unbelievably bad stuff about Trump......You just don't forgive that shit..

I also didn't want him because he Is too ambitious in my opinion...He is also a big time opportunist and he WILL BE a CAREER politician......

But then again Trump SUCKS at picking people.....He sucked at picking his 2 attorney generals, he sucked at picking his 3 SCOTUS justices, he endorsed people like Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, he had people like Chris Christie working for him, he picked Mike Pence.....

The list goes on and on.......

The Worst part is that a LOT of people around the country are going to suffer if Trump doesn't win.......He will just go back to living his Billionaire Life.......But the American people will pay because we supported him....

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I'm in a same sex relationship that will likely result in marriage. It is a good possibility that we will not have children. But, we have very strong family values and are closer to the young people in our families than most aunts. For him to say that Democrats are anti family was a slap in the face to many types of people, including women in same sex relationships. For the first time, I was considering voting for a Republican. If Vance stays on the ticket it will probably have me sitting out of the election. His backhanded apology only made it worse. He has no place to make judgements on decisions that women make regarding procreation.

I liked him at first. Now, I think Trump should replace him. If the Democrats can replace Biden, Trump can replace the VP. Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be a safe pick. Trump does not know how to surround himself with the right people. Whoever he is taking advice from, he should stop.

Vance is a knob. But, elections shouldn't be decided on by the vice. Look at the bigger picture and why you had to leave a liberal city that you loved. It shouldn't be this way but it is all a trade off.

We spoke about this before he picked a VP.....At the time I said that Vance was not a good pick and that I could live with Rubio....(Trump could have used his New Jersey residence)

Now we are stuck with Vance.....It would look ridiculous if Trump replaced him now.....


Actually something like this only happened once in 1972.....McGovern replaced his VP pick (a guy named Thomas Eagleton) because he wasn't vetted and had a DWI conviction. He replaced that guy with Sargent Schiver and got crushed by Nixon.....

Personally I think Trump should have taken the hotdog vendor in Times Square.....I would have jumped for joy....(Not sure if he speaks English though).... Or maybe Trump could have taken one of his caddies......

Btw,

There is some interesting stuff online about that McGovern and Eagleton situation....

It would look ridiculous. But, in this day and age, with Biden stepping down, an assassination attempt, faulty security, a congress woman hanging another country's flag over her WH office, ect.....it is all crazy. It won't happen anyway. It is a moot point. But, gesh, someone should coach Vance on not stepping all over important voting bases.

A historian by the name of Allan Lichtman has successfully predicted every election since 1984. He's calling it an easy win for Harris. Let's hope this is the year that breaks his winning streak of correct calls. It is inconvenient timing as heck with family obligations in Ohio and Rhode Island but, I'm making a trip to the Florida house to vote in person.

I agree with F451 in that replacing him isn't an option. If masturbating on a coach while in college and believing that a woman's life is more fulfilled by having children is the worst they have on him, we are in good shape. The media will blow everything out of proportion.

Yeah I read that dumb story about that "historian" Allan Lichtman predicting every election since 1984.....

You know why its dumb?

Because if you look at every election since 1984 almost all of them were easy to predict except the stolen one in 2020.....

It wasn't too hard to predict Reagan both Bushes, Clinton, Obama and even I predicted Trump......

Don't fall for these bullshit Fox News articles...That network hates Trump.

Respectfully, Mistress, the story about Vance having sex with a couch is unfounded. It was not in his book. It was made up. Between the networks and the Democrats, he was referred to as weird 150 times last week. It is a smear. He should step up and defend himself. What is weird is that the Democrats came up with such a crazy thing.

You're not the only one to notice.
Creepy Leftist Journos Have ALL Agreed On What Word To Defame Trump’s Veep With
FTA:https://twitter.com/i/status/1818064256497238195

I am the first to jump in and research back to someone's full statements, interviews, written word, ect. When it comes to Vance, it appears big tech is, once again, interfering with an election. Short of purchasing and reading his entire book, it is very difficult to find first hand information. If you can share your sources, that would be great. I've been able to find what he said about women and his follow up remarks but nothing about the couch except what the media has put out there. As far as the left throwing his being "Weird" around, it is pure gas lighting. There is a promotional video of Harris dancing with a 7' foot tall drag queen who is dressed like a fruit salad....and she is calling someone else weird? Vance should speak up and address this.

Wasn't Eagleton more about him having suffered several bouts of clinical depression and having been hospitalized for it in the past?

Yes I think so....I also think he had a DUI too... Anyways it was a last minute VP change that MCGOVERN made.. And Nixon crushed him in probably the biggest landslide ever.....

Of course Nixons VP Agnew was a crook..

Either way I don't like or Trust Vance....I think Trump made a mistake....

~sigh~
Here we go again.
Stories are made up by leftists and then get repeated.
Frankly, I don't pay much attention to personality politics so I often miss topics like this.
Since my knowledge is mostly from your post and a Breitbart article, please state your source and also indicate if you disagree with any contentions in my link before I spend a bunch of time researching your claim.
FTA:
As to the "It is being reported that he described masturbating..." even the left wing Snopes addresses that claim as false:
No, JD Vance Did Not Say He Had Sex with Couch Cushions

*Sigh* I do my research. The left is scrubbing the internet for Harris right now. It isn't about believing a falsely reported story. It is about not being able to get enough facts quickly. With Noem, I was able to read entire paragraphs from her book. Big tech was not trying hide facts that even she admitted to. In my opinion, she did a lot of CYA and spinning tales that didn't make sense. I came to this conclusion on my own and was NOT influenced by the media mob. Next time, I will save the links, interviews and articles to share with you. It is understandable that you would want them. I wrongly assumed that as vested in the topic as you were, you would already read and watched them too.

Getting back to Vance, I can understand the less said the better about the couch fabrication. It is an awkward position to be in for the GOP. If they slam the left for making it up, the more talk there is about sex with couches. If they let it stand, the opportunity to reveal Harris's team as liars is lost. His comments about women are right out there. As the female vote is very important for Trump, I'm really disappointment that Vance said what he did. I'm talking about the exact words that came from his mouth in the commencement speech and his weak clarification of them.

Yet you came to your conclusions thinking that Noem didn't indicate she thought the dog was dangerous.
Your sources (what ever they are) either omitted or downplayed the fact that she did feel the dog was dangerous and you believed and posted a lie.
Your posts indicate you envisioned the situation one way and when anything challenges that vision, you dismiss it as spin.
(I.e. it doesn't support your perception and and therefore "doesn't make sense.)
I envision a woman who watched a happy playful puppy transform into a vicious animal that she could not control and had turned on her.
I can imagine her blood running cold as she thought about the times her children played with a dog that could turn transform so quickly.
My take does make sense of her narrative.

Yet you led off your OP with it.
Granted, you allowed for the possibility of it being false, but anyone reading it and trusting your judgement will assume it to be true.

I haven't read his speech. Are your quotes the ones addressed in the article I linked to?

I really hate spending time addressing the wrong quotes.
For your reference, here is one of the quotes the article addresses:

It is NOT true that I came to my conclusion that way. I did not believe she said that in the beginning but later realized that she did. I clearly stated that I did not believe her and she was trying to cover herself from the local stories at the time. I was not able to find the local stories from 20 years ago. Were you? A dog of that breed and age would not be violently aggressive toward people unless there were very abnormal circumstances, such as blindness or serious abuse. Like anyone else who cares about more than stupidly believing a narrative, I delved in. I did more research than most from what I can tell. I admitted when I was wrong and kept looking.

I KNOW about dogs, rural life, animal rescue and farm life. I also KNOW what I saw of her interviews and own words, FIRST HAND. Too much does not add up. We clearly disagree. You are entitled to your belief that I am was blinded by the media mob, even though is NOT even remotely accurate. But, you are entitled to that opinion. Let's not rehash it again.

I did believe it was true of Vance AT FIRST. While I have nearly zero trust or respect for the DNC, I didn't think they would make up such an outrageous thing when there is published written word that disproves it. I do wonder if something in his book was taken out of context. But, really, I don't care enough to read the entire book. As I said, there were plenty of direct quotes, right down to entire paragraphs from Noem's book but I couldn't find any couch quotes from Vance's book.

Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were. He is free to believe what he wants. My concern is that his stated belief will harm Trump's opportunity to win.

I will never convince you that you unfairly condemned Noem and you will never convince me that your opinion is based on logic and not emotion.

And you posted it. As I mentioned above, those who trusted your judgement will believe it unless they stumble upon the truth later.
That's why knee-jerk posts make me angry. It illustrates how effective the left is at spreading lies and propaganda.

~sigh~
Like the Trump "pussy tape," the leftists again put forth their narrative despite what is actually said.
Please read the quoted text carefully. Vance is criticizing journalists on how they (the journalists, not Vance) treat women and that the journalists (not women) will be "sad, lonely, pathetic because of it.
Tell me again how horrible Vance's exact words were.

You refuse to look at a full set of facts on Noem, which is why we will never agree. I'd love to find the local reports from 20 years ago. Emotion, when someone boasts about killing a 14 month old dog and calling it a danger to people with no reports or facts to back that assertion up, is emotional for anyone who cares about dogs. That doesn't mean they can't decipher fact from spin. It make take a few minutes but, it can be done. From her own written words and interviews, she contradicted herself all over the place.

When the media came out with false reports about Nicholas Sandmann being hostile to a Native American, even Fox jumped on it. It was quickly retracted. When I get something wrong, I'm quick to admit it, for two reasons 1. I remain objective and listen to information others have. 2. I delve into researching beyond the media mob spin.

With Vance, I did believe it. What a crazy thing for the left to make up. There well may have been something in this book for them to take out of context. I haven't read it and have no intentions to so I can't say that with certainty. Yes_Goddess is a personal friend of mine. He asked before pointing this out on line. I told him to do it because it leads to good conversation. I'm not concerned for being called out. No one is right 100% of the time and it is getting harder and harder to find pure information. As I said, Trump's campaign is in a awkward spot. Continue to talk about unusual masturbation or just let it go?

I am not a journalist. If I was publishing something beyond a handful of posters, I'd have a team vet it. What I like about this site and miss about MF is that most of us share our views and do not hesitate to admit when we were wrong. I've changed my opinion on various subjects. Listen with an open mind is my motto.

The "Pussy tape" exonerated Trump. Anyone who listened to it, in entirety, with an open mind knows that. I sought it out and listened to it twice.

I found and listened to Vance's speech as well. He said what he did. I don't give a darn what he believes personally. I do not want him to bring Trump's chances down. Did you see the lame back peddling he did? It only made it worse. MY opinion and not that of the media mob.

It boils down to the fact that you don't believe her.
As you suggested, it's probably best we don't rehash this.

Like they have never made up anything in the past.
You attack Vance with the source: "it is being reported." I would hope you would take the time to source your material before posting a hit piece.
Saying "whoops" after the the damage is done doesn't do much to mitigate the damage of such accusations

I narrowed it down to a quote that you acknowledge: "Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were."
So finally we have a common source.
My question is: what part of that quote do you consider "horrible"?
Was it this part: "if you’re going to be the sort of person who asks women to talk about how they regret having children, you’re going to be a sad, lonely, pathetic person..." where he is taking on those who demean women who had children?

Why can't you just admit that Noem killing that dog WAS NOT going to sit right with a lot of people......She also has to be the dumbest politician ever to admit doing such a thing....

As for Vance:

I DID NOT want him from the beginning....(it's obvious you like him).....

My dislike/distrust of him has NOTHING to do with his book/movie (which I never read or saw) or anything that he supposedly said.....I see him as an opportunist who might eventually back stab Trump.....Oh yeah, I can see two years from now Vance trying to pull a 25th amendment tactic.....

And I am sick and freaking tired of hearing his rags to riches story....He sounds exactly like a politician...(ie: Scum of the earth)

Trump should have NEVER taken him....

Btw,

I hear his wife is an extreme radical leftist too....In fact most people who graduated from Yale Law School are leftists......You don't think his wife has any influence over him?

A hit piece? I share my views on this forum. If you consider it a hit piece, I don't know what to say about that. I'm not publishing it in the NY Times. It was being widely reported by multiple sources. Someone would have to be living under a rock not to know about it. I would still believe they took something in his book and embellished it or took it out of context. Frankly, I don't want to take the time to read his book. It doesn't matter to me aside from how it affects Trump.

I find it horrible that he made it sound as though women who don't have children will not have a good quality of life. His clarification shortly later that "Democrats are anti family," was not good either. Is the DNC anti family? I'd say some of their policies are, without a doubt. But, to refer to all Democrats as anti family was nearly as alienating as Hillary's "Basket of deplorable," comment. Again, I don't care what the man thinks. I care about Trump winning the election. I believe Trump could have chosen a better VP pick.

He didn't demean woman who have had children. He demeaned women who don't. If I said that the other way around, it was a typo.

I didn't put much thought into Trump's VP pick at the time. Someone like Tulsi Gabert might have been a better choice. He's fighting for female votes. There is a dark cloud of Trump having supported the overturn of Roe. Vance should have been more careful with his statements. If Trump does win, Vance will leave a Senate seat open. Ohio's Governor is on the RINO side from what I can tell. He could fill the seat with the same. It is a short time until the election. Let's all hope that Vance can hold his own the debate stage. This may be the rare election where the VP's make a difference for those for those on the fence.

Of course I admit that.
I object to inaccurate and unfair reporting about it.

Perhaps, but she's the only governor who didn't go crazy during the pandemic. Figure 49 others dumber than her.

I'm indifferent about him.
What rattles my cage is the ease the MSM is able to attack individuals with lies and distortions.

Chuck, I have a home in Tennessee, Florida and Ohio. In the midst of covid, I had to travel back and forth from California a few times. So, I saw a lot of how the Governors handled things first hand. California was crazy....science fiction novel crazy. It only got better there when Newsome was a short time away from a recall vote. As much dirty play as the Newsome crew did in the recall election, they still would have lost if they had not opened up when they did. The contrast between California and Florida was night and day. DeSantis did not lose his mind durning covid.

Tennessee was weird for a couple of months but nothing like California. Not even remotely close. Things got back to normal there very quickly. The Governor was just fine.

Ohio was odd...not nearly as bad as California but not as sane as Florida and Tennessee.

So, I've got to disagree with you that Noem was the only one who kept a cool head during covid. There are probably other states too. I can only speak to the ones that I frequented during that time.

That indeed is indicative of the power of those "multiple sources."
Where would those sources get that story if they were not from left wing contributors?

This indicates you still want to believe the story or "something else" that shows he's weird.

Again, show the source and quote.
There is no way to address your concern/point when you paraphrases or summarize without providing a reference to exactly what guided you to your conclusion.

How can I respond without having your source at hand?
Your paraphrasing and summations are useless without context

I don't see that in the quote I posted. Please explain.
In order to understand where you are coming from, please answer questions I ask, namely: What part of that quote do you consider "horrible"?

Chuck, you are completely misunderstanding where I am coming from. When something is being widely reported and X is on fire with it, there is nothing wrong in relaying this and bringing it up for discussion. I would like to know exactly, if anything, was said about the couch scenario. Do I want this to be true? God, no. Yes, I do believe there must have been something they could have greatly embellished or taken out of context. It is my gut feeling on it. Could I be wrong? Sure. It is totally appropriate for someone to speculate on a topic. I'm SO NOT demanding that or hoping that the left has any credibility on this. I don't want anything that will hurt or distract from Trump's campaign. I'm unclear why you find what I've said on this an arguing point.

The source you posted is a find place to start. Are you truly telling me that you did not listen to and or read Vance's words about childless women for yourself? It is the first thing that I went out to do. His original words and his lame retraction the next day. He's not denying that the said this. In fact, he did an interview to try to "Clarify" his comments. I watched that. He began by saying, "Look, I have nothing against cats," which I thought was a poor way to begin his "Clarification." Did you truly not watch Vance talking on the topic? Chuck, it is really getting insulting that you believe I'm such an idiot I'm going to accept the media mob's description of what someone else said. Look how many times they've taken Trump out of context. All it took was listening to his own words to see what liars the media is. I tracked down Vance's comments on childless women as well. Did you really not listen to commencement speech or watch his "Clarification" that came a few days later?

You are an informed man. I am stunned that you did not watch Vance's "Clarification" and see the words come out of his own mouth. If I need to spoon feed you what I'm assuming you've already seen before you get on fire about a topic, I will. But, please don't waste my time. Did you not see this for yourself already?

The quote I referenced is what you posted. I took your word for it that you pulled it out of the commencement speech and were quoting him. I did watch that part of the speech but I did not memorize it. Do you realize that Vance, himself, is taking ownership of what he said and even went on the air to explain why he said it? I don't mind quoting sources when the situation calls for it but if I have to track down things you've already seen for yourself, it is getting over the top. How can YOU have an opinion on what Vance said if you didn't watch it for yourself?

Of course there is nothing wrong with it if you trust your sources.
My point is how easy it is to get people to relay a lie and once it has been relayed, how difficult it is to undo the initial comment.

Yes. I told you that at the very beginning of this exchange.
I generally don't listen to political speeches or comment on the personalities of politicians.
I didn't feel the need to comment on your post--I just took your word for it.
It wasn't until I read the post by Yes_Goddess that I found out the couch story was false but I still didn't feel the need to comment on your post.
I was more concerned about the MSM tactic using "weird" to describe Vance and I did comment on that.
I wouldn't have commented on your post except a day or so later I came across the article I linked to with the headline: AP Reporter Called Out for Aiding and Abetting Kamala Harris’s Lies About JD Vance.
This sounded like the tactic of the MSM telling the listeners how to interpret what they hear such as they did with the "pussy tape."
Before I jumped in, I gave you the link to the article and asked if you found fault with it.
Did you even look at the article I linked to? You never indicated that you did so I finally resorted to taking a quote from it to have something solid that we could discuss.
You responded with: "Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were."
I then asked what you found in that quote that was so horrible.
Your response was that he demeaned women who haven't had children.
I didn't see that and asked for an explanation.
You responded with a paragraph that never touched on the requested explanation.

Unable to get you to support your impression of "horrible" I'll give you my impression:
He criticized journalists (and others like them) for implying women regret having children.

If you don't feel my impression is valid, then state yours and the reasoning behind it...PLEASE.

Well when I asked you to support your opinion and you failed, I'll go with the opinion of Hannah Knudsen, the author of the article I linked to.

Let me ask you something Chuck....

I am going to assume that you weren't born yesterday and that you have been on this planet for awhile now....(ie: You have been around the block; this isn't your first rodeo)

Don't you know by now that practically every single media outlet lies all the time? The media has always sold these politicians to the public....The same way that their advertisers sell you their cars, clothes and pharmaceutical drugs...They also sell you their wars and create every racial division.....

In plain English the Media is pure evil....From MSNBC to FOX....The hosts are ALL agents of evil....From Rachel Maddow to Sean Hannity....All of them are making millions preaching evil....

Almost all of these media hosts and most of these politicians capitalize some more with their books too.....

None of them care about the American people....They only care about their bank accounts.....

What I just said is fact...

Chuck,

All media lies. I agree with F451 on this one. It is why it is so important to listen to exactly what the person in question said, from their own mouth or get direct words from their own pen in a documented source. I was up front that I couldn't find this about the couch story. But, the Trump campaign had not denied or addressed. As it went on, I couldn't find anything from his book on line. It was blowing up X. As time went on, Yes_Goddess, who is a good friend of mine, called me and told me that he had managed to finally find out that it was, so far, unfounded. I was happy to hear it but remain concern that if this continues to follow Vance around, some type of shaming statement should be made to expose it as fabrication. It is what makes wonder...not claim...but wonder if there was some type of comment made that was wildly embellished. MSM did not suggest this. It is my own thought. The Trump is a racist lie that way too many believe, came from an incident many decades ago that was more about Trump's father than it was him, look how that blew up and spread. It seems they find something they can twist and take out of context...like Trump's Charlottesville speech. I've done nothing but discuss my thoughts on this here honestly.

As for the speech that Vance gave at a college commencement, I did seek that out. I thought for certain they had taken him out of context. I was disappointed, to hear with my own two ears, that they did not. When his clarification came out a few days later, I listened it, which in my own perception inflamed only more. It set the GOP back even further with female voters, in my own opinion.

As I listen to speeches and interviews, I will save them for you and post them here if the topic comes up. Again, I was wrong to assume that you were tracking down original words from someone's own mouth.

Yes, I did read your article and listened to the video. It was much better than the lame clarification that he gave earlier. But, it doesn't change the words HE chose to use in the commencement speech. He is back peddling now. But, we can't have a conversation about it if you don't watch speeches. It is like analyzing a football game that you didn't see.

What I find horrible is that there are people who do not want the responsibility of having children or can't have them. It doesn't mean they are anti family. It doesn't mean that they are influenced by the feminist Vance rants about it. What he said was horribly insensitive and flat out ignorant. I write this as the mother of six and being very involved in my grandchildren lives, as well as my niece and nephew's. I can't imagine my life without them. But, 1. I was lucky enough to have children with no problem. I also was more family driven than career driven. I enjoyed my careers, which took me down 3 entirely different paths in life. But, family was my priority. Not everyone is like that. They shouldn't be shamed. But, was is most horrible about his OWN words at the speech, was that at a time when Trump is struggling for the female vote, that made the fight A LOT harder.

With his retractions, although the one in this article is better than the first, it still digs him deeper in the whole of alienating both young and female voters. That is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. It is my own perception from all of what I've read and heard, which I've done my due diligence.

Again, the media mob are liars. I do NOT blindly believe anything they say, none of them, including Fox. Podcasts I'm finding to be better, especially Rogan's with live fact checks...but even then they have to be double checked and, depending on the subject triple checked. Even then, more information many not come out until later.

I didn't fail to support my opinion. You are nit picking everything I say. But, now that I know you aren't watching or reading original sources, I will start saving the links for you. But, not agreeing with someone doesn't mean they somehow failed to support their opinion. It means you didn't agree with them.

I don't want to get in the middle of a back and forth. But, I do want to explain my post. Lady Cheyenne and I have been friends for many years. We haven't played or filmed in many of years but we talk on the phone often and, these days, often about politics and current events. When this stuff on Vance exploded on Twitter, I told her about it. Neither one of us could find a good source with exact quotes. Later, when I learned that it was unfounded, I mentioned it in one of our casual chats. She wanted me to post my findings here instead of her doing it. I can tell you first hand, she wasn't jumping on the msm band wagon. I regret that my post has lead to such contention.

I think your post was meant for Chuck....Not sure why you wrote it to me.

Chuck said Cheyenne was "jumping on the bandwagon" not me.

And for the record I said I didnt like Vance way before any of this stuff came out....I dont like him because I think he is a RINO, an oppurtunist and a career politician who WILL stab Trump in the back down the road...

Not to mention all the nasty things Vance said about Trump like calling him "The Hitler of America" and a "Sexual offender"

The post was meant for Chuck. Sorry about that.

What gave you the impression that I don't know that?

Because you seem amazed that people keep falling for the media lies and then spreading those lies themselves.....It's a never ending cycle with these people.....

But putting all of this aside, people should be more concerned with the CHEATING that is about to take place on November 4th.... It might be 2020 all over again....

Between the 20 million ILLEGALS voting, half a dozen states ALLOWING votes to come in a week after the election and over 29 million fraudulent registries (in 20 states) illegally on State Voter rolls we are screwed....

Btw,

Re: Those 29 million FAKE/FRAUDULENT voter registries

The States have 4 days left to clean them up or they stay.......The Republicans and Trumps team had 3 and a half years to do something about this....But they wait until now......A lawsuit was just filed yesterday regarding this issue but it's too late..


I have been following this situation for a month now.....



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ng-election-integrity-lawsuits-multiple/

That is exactly what I asked of you.
You paraphrased and summarized but didn't provide the basis for your conclusions.
If I know exactly what text you are addressing, I can read it with my own perception.

In an effort to understand your point, I provided a quote that you said: "Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were."
All I asked was for you to explain what was it he said in that quote that you thought was so horrible.
I gave you my interpretation and it didn't seem so horrible.
If you won't discuss a single paragraph, how do you expect to have a discussion on the bulk of his speeches and interviews?

Okay.
What exactly are HIS words that you object to?


I don't have to watch an entire football game to analyze a controversial play.

I think you misspoke here. If you didn't, I disagree with you 100 %.

No. I'm struggling to get you to answer my question and support your opinion. If you can't do that for one paragraph that you contend supports your position, then why should I believe your perception on the rest?

One last time concerning that paragraph (from my earlier post):

You have good taste in friends.
I've followed Cheyenne from her early blog when she first started to several discussion boards such as this one.
I wouldn't have participated in any of them if she wasn't there.
We both have similar family values; we both have similar moral values; we both share most political philosophies; and we both are agitated when she is wrong.

There have been several incidences where I have found right biased information sources when others could not.
My theory (unsupported but plausible) is that Google buries articles and sites that are positive toward conservative ideals under a sea of contrary liberal posts.
I use Duck Duck Go and I seem to get more results that support conservatives than those who use Google.

I never thought so. I feel like she got run over by it.

Your post had nothing to with "such contention."
As I mentioned in one of my posts, I didn't bother with the "couch incident."
What caused the "contention" was my concern with the more insidious issue of Vance being misinterpreted.
The couch incident got dragged in along with it.

Chuck, the article you posted about Vance with the video clip of him going on the offensive seals my belief that he is alienating voting bases and dragging Trump down. I base that on words from his own words. It is a moot point as the VP choice has been made. But, it was a bad one in MY opinion. I don't care for your dismissing views you don't agree with as someone being enough of an idiot to fall for the charlatans of MSM. Aside from that, thank you for your kind words. People don't always have to agree. Btw, my boyfriend loves that Vance is going on the offense. Some people might. But, I think it is self serving and stupid on his part. He's not winning anyone over that wasn't already going to vote for Trump.

Thanks for responding to my post directed to Yes_Goddess.
However, do you realize how frustrating it is to make a post and have it bypassed? (I'm talking about my post #1539)

Do you realize how frustrating it is to discuss an issue with you?
You state time and time again that you base your opinion on Vance's own words.
Vance has uttered many words in every speech and interview.
Is it really too much to ask which of those words and what context were relevant to your forming your opinion?
If I still don't see your point, is it too much to ask you to explain why those words are damning?
If I view a statement differently and offer my interpretation, is it too much to ask for you to tell me why you think I'm wrong?

When you don't support your views with anything more that paraphrases and summaries, I'm left to speculate on them and your sources.
I'm sorry if my speculations are offensive but they are honest.
I don't think you are an idiot but I do think you were blindsided.