[Kevmo]

Are you serious? You really think he was criticizing the electoral college in 2012, but relied on it (because he lost the popular vote in 2016) because he had some sort of constitutional conservative awakening at 68 years of age?
***Did I say that? NO. Not only NO but FUQ NO. I really don’t like trolls twisting my words so they can argue against the straw position.

Give me a break.
***No I will not give you a break because you are a NeverTrumper.

He will do or say whatever he thinks will work for him,
***Like most politicians. At least Trump didn’t shiite on the constitution and turn our country into an oligarchy like Obambam did, nor steal the election like Biden did. Actions. Actions.Speak.Louder.Than.Words.

and he couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the constitution.
***He gave a rat’s ass in 2016. But lookie here, you’re wandering into neverTrumpism land and that level of bullshiite has a tendency to get one zotted.

He had no problem with the outcome in 2016 (despite his losing the popular vote) because he won.
***Gosh, would that qualify as a “constitutional conservative awakening at 68 years of age?”

If he had lost in 2016 he would have claimed fraud.
***Argument from silence. Classic fallacy. If you’re gonna argue from silence then so am I. Hillary was silent about rounding up NeverTrumper RINOs because they were so ineffective so if she woulda won, you guys would all be dead just like her other political enemies.

If he had won the popular vote 2016 but lost the electoral vote he would have called the electoral system a sham.
***Well, I can see that hypothetical, since he supPOSEDly criticized the electoral college in 2012.

He will do or say whatever he thinks is in his interest.
***Once again, you drift over into NeverTrumpisms. It’ll cause your own zot. You should stick to facts instead of asserting your dumbass nevertrump opinions.

[Qilin]

> Did I say that? NO. Not only NO but FUQ NO. I really don’t like trolls twisting my words so they can argue against the straw position.

I apologize. It was not my intention to twist your words. Here's what you wrote that led me that that interpretation.

[...]then you’ve made a bit of a case that the man went from criticizing the Electoral College to relying on it in 2016. That reinforces my perspective as a straightforward constitutionalist.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your meaning.

> He gave a rat’s ass in 2016.

He accepted the electoral vote in 2016 because he won. If he hadn't won, he would not have accepted it. Do you seriously doubt this?

> But lookie here, you’re wandering into neverTrumpism land and that level of bullshiite has a tendency to get one zotted.

I'm not terribly worried about that. I'm am ultimately only accountable to God. But I think Jim would do well to keep a few of us around because we're going to be the ones to pick up the pieces after Trump and his followers have burned the house down.

> Gosh, would that qualify as a “constitutional conservative awakening at 68 years of age?”

Gosh, no. That would qualify as Trump doing or saying whatever he thinks is in his own interest without regard for the law, moral principles, etc.