It's interesting that you'd bring up the Constitution as it relates to Crenshaw, seeing as an incident that occurred regarding the Constitution, particularly that of the First Amendment, and his response to and handling of the situation is but one example that has led me to believe he is, at best, insincere about his principles, and, at …
It's interesting that you'd bring up the Constitution as it relates to Crenshaw, seeing as an incident that occurred regarding the Constitution, particularly that of the First Amendment, and his response to and handling of the situation is but one example that has led me to believe he is, at best, insincere about his principles, and, at worst, an establishment phony.
If you know anything about the controversial manner involving the anti-BDS bill and movement a few years back, you'll know that Dan doesn't actually appear to support Americans' Right to freedom of expression, mobility, speech, nor to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
When confronted as a hypocrite as it pertained to his position on the anti-BDS bill vs his supposed stance on the First Amendment, he had a meltdown and levied accusations of thought-crimes and hate-mongering in much the same manner a Democrat would.
I've witnessed him seemingly flip-flop on multiple occasions, which tells me, he's either severely unprincipled and doesn't exactly understand that which he preaches, or he's disingenuous and flaunts himself as whomever everyone wants or expects him to be, like a showman.
He's also seemingly easily influenced and can turn with the wind.... Yet, ironically, always seems to maintain these comfy-kosher positions that keep him out of hot water.
In other words, he's a man of talk and little action. And when called out for such, he'll show his real colours.
I don't consider anyone who operates like that a man on my team. But I would surely call him a snake.
PS Does anyone recall Dan's position on both COVID policies and the 2020 election?
Thanks for your reply. I remember the anti-BDS bill/1A issue from a few years and agree that was an odd stance to take. Free speech should be absolute, even anti-Semitic speech.
What specific issues have you seen him flip flop on? You described it as seemingly, which seems to indicate you are assuming. I’m not a fan of flip flopping for political convenience but I would argue that it can be a sign of intellectual maturity for one to evolve on a position based on learning or new information coming to light.
I agree. Evolution of one's personal beliefs and/or values and principles does not equate to flip-flopping. And, yet, sometimes it can appear as such.
When I use the term "seemingly" it is to imply it's what something appears to be.... It's not merely an assumption.
To be honest, I've not paid attention to Crenshaw in so long, I don't think I could recall which specific issues he flipped on if I wracked my brain to remember.
What I DO recall is that he'd back-peddle previously-made statements when confronted with inconsistencies.
This is apparent in almost every informal interview he participated in that I watched.
In regards to your last reply (to the other person, not me) maybe the more suitable description for people's distrust with Crenshaw is that he turned out to be a man different than what he first presented himself as.
Maybe that's the man he always was, and the man your husband knew, but it wasn't the man he presented to the world, initially.
And I don't think it had anything to do with Trump.... Maybe for some die-hards, but not for most.
If you look around , even within this comment section, many are comfortable acknowledging that Trump was no angel and that his actions weren't always acceptable.
I agree that nobody will ever align with one another's beliefs 100%, and we shouldn't discount them because of such -- Lord knows even those who most closely aligned with my own still disagree from time to time, and yet I'd trust them with my life.
Rather, more aptly, people are frustrated with not being heard. With having to be dragged around by the whims of others.... Even when not in their (read: OUR) best interest.
Instead, I'd challenge you to consider which *actions* Crenshaw engaged in that *prove his principles.*
As I said, I saw him as a man with a lot of talk and little action.... For the people.
On a side note: I think his, or anyone's, failure to acknowledge the power and influence of the WEF at this point should be a red flag for all.
It's hard to fathom that anyone who is paying attention has not put the pieces together.
And yet we also know how easily hushed and silenced politicians can be.
Considering your concern for distraction by labels, and rationalizing behaviour that would otherwise be deemed aligned with NeoCons, I worry if you've allowed bias to cloud your judgement.
I mean, just because you don't want, or believe, Dan to be a NeoCon, doesn't mean he doesn't fit the description.
Likewise, just because you don't want, or believe, Dan to be under the influence of powerful and corrupt entities does not necessarily make it so.
I'm not saying one way or another.... Again, I don't really pay attention to the man, anymore.
I'm just saying, when something seems to be a certain way, it probably is that way. Especially if it can't be confirmed NOT to be.
And especially in the context of everything we've learned, witnessed, and experienced over the course of the last few years.
It's interesting that you'd bring up the Constitution as it relates to Crenshaw, seeing as an incident that occurred regarding the Constitution, particularly that of the First Amendment, and his response to and handling of the situation is but one example that has led me to believe he is, at best, insincere about his principles, and, at worst, an establishment phony.
If you know anything about the controversial manner involving the anti-BDS bill and movement a few years back, you'll know that Dan doesn't actually appear to support Americans' Right to freedom of expression, mobility, speech, nor to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
When confronted as a hypocrite as it pertained to his position on the anti-BDS bill vs his supposed stance on the First Amendment, he had a meltdown and levied accusations of thought-crimes and hate-mongering in much the same manner a Democrat would.
I've witnessed him seemingly flip-flop on multiple occasions, which tells me, he's either severely unprincipled and doesn't exactly understand that which he preaches, or he's disingenuous and flaunts himself as whomever everyone wants or expects him to be, like a showman.
He's also seemingly easily influenced and can turn with the wind.... Yet, ironically, always seems to maintain these comfy-kosher positions that keep him out of hot water.
In other words, he's a man of talk and little action. And when called out for such, he'll show his real colours.
I don't consider anyone who operates like that a man on my team. But I would surely call him a snake.
PS Does anyone recall Dan's position on both COVID policies and the 2020 election?
Thanks for your reply. I remember the anti-BDS bill/1A issue from a few years and agree that was an odd stance to take. Free speech should be absolute, even anti-Semitic speech.
What specific issues have you seen him flip flop on? You described it as seemingly, which seems to indicate you are assuming. I’m not a fan of flip flopping for political convenience but I would argue that it can be a sign of intellectual maturity for one to evolve on a position based on learning or new information coming to light.
I agree. Evolution of one's personal beliefs and/or values and principles does not equate to flip-flopping. And, yet, sometimes it can appear as such.
When I use the term "seemingly" it is to imply it's what something appears to be.... It's not merely an assumption.
To be honest, I've not paid attention to Crenshaw in so long, I don't think I could recall which specific issues he flipped on if I wracked my brain to remember.
What I DO recall is that he'd back-peddle previously-made statements when confronted with inconsistencies.
This is apparent in almost every informal interview he participated in that I watched.
In regards to your last reply (to the other person, not me) maybe the more suitable description for people's distrust with Crenshaw is that he turned out to be a man different than what he first presented himself as.
Maybe that's the man he always was, and the man your husband knew, but it wasn't the man he presented to the world, initially.
And I don't think it had anything to do with Trump.... Maybe for some die-hards, but not for most.
If you look around , even within this comment section, many are comfortable acknowledging that Trump was no angel and that his actions weren't always acceptable.
I agree that nobody will ever align with one another's beliefs 100%, and we shouldn't discount them because of such -- Lord knows even those who most closely aligned with my own still disagree from time to time, and yet I'd trust them with my life.
Rather, more aptly, people are frustrated with not being heard. With having to be dragged around by the whims of others.... Even when not in their (read: OUR) best interest.
Instead, I'd challenge you to consider which *actions* Crenshaw engaged in that *prove his principles.*
As I said, I saw him as a man with a lot of talk and little action.... For the people.
On a side note: I think his, or anyone's, failure to acknowledge the power and influence of the WEF at this point should be a red flag for all.
It's hard to fathom that anyone who is paying attention has not put the pieces together.
And yet we also know how easily hushed and silenced politicians can be.
Considering your concern for distraction by labels, and rationalizing behaviour that would otherwise be deemed aligned with NeoCons, I worry if you've allowed bias to cloud your judgement.
I mean, just because you don't want, or believe, Dan to be a NeoCon, doesn't mean he doesn't fit the description.
Likewise, just because you don't want, or believe, Dan to be under the influence of powerful and corrupt entities does not necessarily make it so.
I'm not saying one way or another.... Again, I don't really pay attention to the man, anymore.
I'm just saying, when something seems to be a certain way, it probably is that way. Especially if it can't be confirmed NOT to be.
And especially in the context of everything we've learned, witnessed, and experienced over the course of the last few years.
We know how deep and vast the swamp truly is.