Trump's Endorsement of 'J.D. Mandel' Sums Up Ohio's GOP Senate Primary
If even Donald Trump can't tell the candidates apart, what hope do Ohioans have?

Ohio voters will go to the polls today to decide, in part, whom to nominate in the race to replace Sen. Rob Portman. After cruising to a comfortable victory in 2016, Portman, a Republican, announced last year that he would not seek a third term. Since Ohio primary winners are determined by plurality vote, candidates won't have to worry about runoffs, but about getting the most votes today.
If GOP primary voters have trouble telling the candidates apart, that is understandable. In mid-April, former President Donald Trump endorsed Hillbilly Elegy memoirist J.D. Vance, over former state treasurer Josh Mandel, for the nomination. But at a campaign rally over the weekend, Trump referred to his chosen candidate as "J.D. Mandel."
If even Trump can't tell the candidates apart, what hope do Ohioans have?
Despite a crowded primary field—seven candidates in total—Mandel was the frontrunner for much of the last year. A Marine intelligence specialist, Mandel served two tours in Iraq before returning to Ohio to serve in the state House, followed by two terms as state treasurer. He also ran twice, unsuccessfully, against Democrat Sherrod Brown for Ohio's other Senate seat. In his first bids for public office, Mandel conducted himself as a moderate and eschewed partisan squabbling.
But recently, Mandel has tacked toward his party's hard-right: While in 2012 he introduced Mitt Romney at a presidential campaign rally, last year he proclaimed, "Mitt Romney is a loser." He has claimed as recently as February that the 2020 presidential election contained "clear evidence" of "election fraud," often saying explicitly that "the election was stolen" from Trump. After Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R–Ohio) voted to impeach Trump after his conduct on January 6, Mandel called Gonzalez a "traitor."
Where once Mandel focused on kitchen table issues like jobs and the economy, his campaign has been characterized by red meat for the Trump base—he has referred to an "invasion" of "illegals" at the Southern border "funded" by George Soros, claimed COVID-19 to be a "bioweapon manufactured by the Chinese Communist Party," and blamed the pandemic on the "deep state." And it seemed to be working: For much of last year, Mandel ran comfortably ahead in a crowded field.
But that has changed in recent months: Despite Mandel spending so much time courting the former president's base, Trump's eventual endorsement went to Vance, a former venture capitalist. Trump's endorsement seems to have supercharged Vance's campaign, putting him neck-and-neck with Mandel.
The fact that Trump chose Vance likely came as a shock to the other candidates: Vance infamously said in 2016 that he would "never vote for Trump," before shrugging last summer that he would "suck it up and support him."
As a candidate for Senate, Vance has embraced the openly authoritarian, nationalist wing of the conservative movement. He advocated seizing the assets of nonprofits whose politics he does not like. Just weeks into Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine, Vance said he didn't "really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another." Both he and Mandel have pushed the "why care about Ukraine's border instead of our own" line, as if condemning expansionist military actions is mutually exclusive with enforcing immigration policy. (More recently, Vance clarified that "Regardless of…what's going on in Ukraine or what's going on in Russia, it is not in our vital national security interest.")
Vance's biggest benefactor is his former boss in venture capital, Peter Thiel, who has pumped more than $13 million into the race. Thiel, once considered a prominent libertarian, nowadays touts the virtues of "national conservatism," an ideology less concerned with individual liberty and personal responsibility and more focused on restricting immigration and trade and weaponizing the federal government to punish its perceived enemies.
Of course, Vance and Mandel are not the only candidates running: Indeed, the closest thing to a moderate that the race has is likely Matt Dolan, an Ohio state senator. Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians, contributed more than $10 million of his own money to the race. But as the other candidates traveled to Florida to pitch themselves to the former president, Dolan has established himself as a more moderate choice, the only candidate to not seek Trump's endorsement. He is also the only candidate to affirm that the 2020 election was not, in fact, stolen.
But even though Dolan does not seek Trump's explicit favor, he is still making a play for the former president's base: On his campaign website, Dolan demonstrates his support of "academic freedom" by touting his vote in the state senate to "ban critical race theory in Ohio," despite bans on subjects being a clear violation of the principles of academic freedom. Dolan has been surging in recent polls and could carry out an upset. But it is also likely, as Politico reported, that he could be stymied by "a low ceiling of support, given his dependence on Republican voters who are willing to move on from Trump — a minority of the party."
Among the other candidates: In February, investment banker Mike Gibbons briefly led the field. Gibbons has spent more than $15 million of his own money but will likely be remembered mostly for two debates in March. In the first, Gibbons stood nose-to-nose with Mandel as they each tried to shout the other down about their respective records. In the second, Gibbons was flummoxed and unable to respond after being accused of sexism by fellow candidate Jane Timken for previously claiming that she had "barely worked" prior to entering politics.
For her part, Timken, former chair of the Ohio Republican Party, has tried to use her status as the only woman in the race to set herself apart from the pack. She refers to herself as a "mom on a mission" and garnered media attention for a February campaign ad in which she referred to the men she was running against as "guys who overcompensate for their inadequacies." But despite a cheeky ad, plus the endorsement of the outgoing Portman, Timken has yet to poll any higher than 10 percent in a race in which the winners poll in the mid-20s. The other two candidates in the race, Neil Patel and Mark Pukita, have never polled over 2 percent.
Going into the primary today, polls show that the likeliest winners are either Vance, Mandel, or a late-surging Dolan. But regardless of who captures the nomination, the result is likely to be the same: A Trump simulacrum, dedicated more to culture war grievances than traditional conservative principles like personal freedom or constraining the size of government. No matter who wins today, everybody who values liberty loses.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How does Trump being unable to tell the candidates apart prove anything? Trump's a retard, isn't he? Are you claiming that all Republicans are retarded, or just Ohioans? Personally, I think politicians are all immoral evil snakes, and anybody that believes anything they say is the retarded one,
It is a danger to let the uneducated masses have a say in who they want to vote for. Why won't they listen to the elites in media and the elites in the party structure??
And if they don't shape up, we will bring back the king and the pope.
That’s what the democrats were doing in 2020. Saving us from making choices they didn’t approve.
Not *all* Republicans are retarded.
If only the candidates could all be just like political journalists.
No matter who wins today, everybody who values liberty loses.
This is why people don't take Reason as a serious publication anymore.
What loss of liberty is brought up in the article?
"academic freedom" by touting his vote in the state senate to "ban critical race theory in Ohio," despite bans on subjects being a clear violation of the principles of academic freedom.
Oh noes. Not banning post modernism and critical theory from being taught in public schools. The horror. Why can't 4th grade teachers have their freedoms! What do you mean they are employees teaching state cirriculum?? They need to be free to indoctrinate kids.
And here we see Jesse deflecting on behalf of Team Red.
Jesse, what happened to the "spirit of free speech"? Twitter has the legal right to ban people from its platform based on viewpoint, but they shouldn't in order to foster a spirit of free inquiry. Similarly, the state has the legal right to ban teachers from teaching certain topics based on viewpoint, in their role as employers, but they shouldn't, in order to foster a spirit of free inquiry especially in the classroom.
Ultimately, what do you want to see as the purpose of a curriculum?
Fuck off, groomer. It isn't in the spirit of free inquiry for teachers to regurgitate Marxist propaganda to 2nd graders about white privilege and institutional racism. Teaching based on viewpoint is indoctrination, not education.
It isn't in the spirit of free inquiry for teachers to regurgitate Marxist propaganda to 2nd graders about white privilege and institutional racism.
What about teaching kids about capitalist propaganda? Is that "indoctrination"?
The status quo already represents a type of moral choice. Teaching kids "like in the good ol' days" is also a type of indoctrination, one that tells kids that the status quo is normative and correct.
If you truly do not want kids to be "indoctrinated" into ANY particular viewpoint, you should be in favor of exposing them to as wide of range of viewpoints as possible, so as to avoid the charge of giving preferential treatment to one over another. So yes, they should learn the pros and cons of all sorts of different viewpoints, Marxism, capitalism, anarchism, libertarianism, progressivism, etc., etc. In an age-appropriate and professional manner of course.
Is that what you favor?
What is capitalist propaganda and how is it used in school? A high school economics course citing demand and supply curves lol?
I see you are still defending indoctrination in public school systems. Public school teachers are employees, not activists.
School material is decided at the state and school boards. They should stick to objective topics.
While schools continue to fall in reading and math, you would rather teach them people are racist or have no chance based solely on skin color, why?
Morality is not a product of schools, that is for parents to decide, not incels like yourself.
Kids and parents are free to teach them political systems. I learned hobbes, ultilarianism, locke and others in school. The teacher did not once go into preaching one over the other. They didn't have gender pandas to teach subjective and controversial subjects in grade school. Every time you open your mouth you show yourself to be biased and wanting indoctrination.
And then you deny it the next day when called out.
Teachers are not parents.
You are the one defending indoctrination in schools when you insist that certain topics be excluded based on viewpoint.
School material is decided at the state and school boards. They should stick to objective topics.
I agree that school material should be decided at as local of a level as possible. I disagree that they should stick *only* to objective topics. First, what constitutes an "objective" topic? Math, science? Those are not as objective as you might think. Second, if you avoid the "subjective" topics in class, you are implicitly teaching students that the status quo is normative and correct, because you aren't exposing them to valid criticisms of the status quo. Do you like the status quo, Jesse? I don't. Why don't you want kids to learn about critiques of the status quo? How do you expect to get change from the status quo otherwise?
While schools continue to fall in reading and math, you would rather teach them people are racist or have no chance based solely on skin color, why?
I don't want to teach kids that "they are racist" or that they "have no chance solely on skin color". That is yet two more of your lies. I do want to expose kids to the controversy surrounding race and power, in a professional and age-appropriate manner. That is what a proper *education* should do. How do YOU want kids to learn about race issues? If they don't learn about them in the classroom in an academic way, they will learn about them from social media, online demagogues, the dominant cultural narratives. Is that what you would prefer? That kids should learn about race issues from cultural BLM narratives than from an academic setting?
Morality is not a product of schools, that is for parents to decide, not incels like yourself.
Schools shouldn't be making moral judgments, but there is nothing wrong with exposing kids to different moral frameworks.
I learned hobbes, ultilarianism, locke and others in school. The teacher did not once go into preaching one over the other.
Oh, so it IS possible for schools to teach "subjective" concepts without indoctrination and without moral judgment. Great! Let's do that. Why not?
They didn't have gender pandas to teach subjective and controversial subjects in grade school.
Huh, but you just said that you learned about Hobbes and Locke and utilitarianism in school.... You don't regard these as "subjective and controversial subjects"? This statement represents the conceit associated with the status quo.
The philosophy of Hobbes, Locke, and Mills were not used to justify the social engineering that killed 150 million people in the last century. Quite the contrary, where they were used to justify policies, it has resulted in a standard of living for most citizens unlike anything ever seen before on the planet.
Forgive me if I think teaching Apologetic Marxism to impressionable children is a huge mistake.
It is amazing watching you rationalize your lies.
Yes you defend CRT. You also defend teachers actually pushing critical praxis. You have been given dozens and dozens of primary examples that you ignore and deny.
Teaching economic theory is not indoctrination. Telling a kid society is out to get them, giving them credit for attending specific political events, praising and grooming kids to become trans, etc are all forms of indoctrination.
Teaching a kid 2+2=4 no matter what is not.
Youre so full of shit jeff.
This is a common tactic for you. You avoid answering questions by just going on attack mode and making more baseless accusations. You don't even bother trying to address my questions. You just attack, attack, attack. This is why it's so frustrating having any sort of discussion with you.
Let's just start with one question, and see if you can address it:
How should the topic of race be taught in schools? If you say "schools should avoid it", then that means kids will learn about race from dominant cultural narratives, their friends, etc. Is that really what you want?
And here we see Jeffy deflecting on behalf of Team Blue.
Who do you work for Jeff? Is it Media Matters? Some Open Societies outfit? Our Revolution?
Maybe you want to take a stab at answering the question.
How should the topic of race be taught in schools? If you say "schools should avoid it", then that means kids will learn about race from dominant cultural narratives, their friends, etc. Is that really what you want?
Here's where we pretend that CRT is about teaching race, when really it's about teaching racism.
I love sophistry. So fun.
"I don't want to teach kids that "they are racist" or that they "have no chance solely on skin color". That is yet two more of your lies. I do want to expose kids to the controversy surrounding race and power, in a professional and age-appropriate manner."
Too bad. You aren't the parent. And (to my knowledge) you aren't in Ohio.
I am coming to see this as a common tactic of yours. You are unwilling to defend CRT, and so you just want to defend this fantasy notion that "Free inquiry" or "Critical thinking" means we shouldn't rule subjects like CRT out of bounds. You did this earlier with ESGs- you are unwilling to honestly stand up and defend ESGs, so you just say things like "Well people ought to be able to make these choices for themselves."
I'm going to be clear here: CRT topics such as Systemic Racism, Equity instead of Equality, and Privilege have ZERO place in a classroom with my kids, other than "Fields of study, like Eugenics, that should be rejected out of hand due to their bunk and evil foundations".
But these topics are not just being presented in K-12 schools, they are being pushed by teachers who have been trained on the school budget to use these terms. My hispanic child explained to me how in a class group discussion, she was deemed passing-white hispanic and therefore possessing white privilege. This wasn't "discussing the merits of CRT." It was literally indoctrination. And it was led by a teacher.
So you need to stand up here and explain why, out of the infinite subjects kids could learn, CRT topics are so important. Not just "Some people think this..." but actually trying to convince children that they are oppressors or oppressed merely based on their skin color. We are passed the point of general talks about "Academic Freedom". The question at hand is whether THIS SPECIFIC subject will be taught in schools. So you need to explain why it has higher merit than, say, Reading, Writing, Math, or classical views of human individuality.
Otherwise, no one is going to take your sophist tactics as anything but evasion.
Look, for me, it is not about the specific items in CRT. It is about kids getting a well-rounded education. I don't specifically know every single thing that is purported to be in CRT (and frankly no one does because the definition itself is, well, 'fluid' and subjective). I will leave it in the hands of professionals to decide what is best. I don't attempt to tell doctors how to operate on patients. I don't attempt to tell lawyers how to argue cases. I don't attempt to tell plumbers how to fix pipes. And I don't attempt to tell teachers how to teach. That is because I have enough humility to know what I don't know and I should be imperiously deciding for everyone how to do their jobs. (Which by the way is a big part of what makes me a libertarian - this humility that I don't know what is best for everyone.) I assume and expect that professionals will act professionally and respectfully within the bounds of their professional expertise. If that is not happening, then the problem is not the curriculum, it's the unprofessional teacher who should be disciplined or fired.
My bottom line is that I want kids to have a solid education that encompasses not just basic skills or job training, but critical thinking and how to be an informed engaged productive citizen. Discussions of race and power certainly ought to be a part of that. I absolutely do NOT want schools to shy away from controversial subjects. They should be the places where controversial subjects are approached from a point of view of academic rigor and respect. The alternative is that kids learn about these topics from nonrigorous forums. That's not what we want, is it?
In the current system that we have, no single parent has veto power over the curriculum for the entire school. For better or for worse, deciding on the curriculum is a collective matter. Again in the current system, if you want absolute veto power over your kids' curriculum, the only way to accomplish that is with homeschooling. If that's what you want, then great. I totally support homeschooling. But in terms of public schools, I will advocate for what I specified above.
So if your child was told by the teacher that she definitely had "white privilege" as an immutable part of her soul, I don't think that is appropriate. BUT, if your teacher had a classroom exercise in which comparative theories of race and power were discussed, and that based on this one particular model, your child would be considered to have 'white privilege', then that's fine in that context. See the difference?
"I don't specifically know every single thing that is purported to be in CRT"
Here we plead ignorance and then go on to pretend that teaching CRT is all about education on race relations and not coopted Klan-style race hatred.
Did I mention how much I love sophistry?
What about teaching kids about capitalist propaganda?
Just teach American History. Rockefeller, Edison and Ford don't need to be propagandized when they actually revolutionized technologies that literally changed the world. Then teach about all the similar Soviet and Chinese advances. Kids can draw the conclusions for themselves.
You are going full tilt Marxist today. Good for you. It has to feel good to drop the pretense of libertarianism.
Saying that kids should learn about different political systems is not an endorsement of each of those systems.
When you combine it with the mantra that all viewpoints are equally valid, it absolutely is. I will go so far as to say that it is dangerously irresponsible.
The critical praxis being taught and used is not teaching about a system you dishonest fuck.
Telling kids to not to talk to their parents is not teaching a system you dishonest fuck.
You are so full of lies in your need to defend the left and their actions.
Why gosh, according to Chemjeff's logic, we should be teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Totally equally valid to evolutionary theory. And kids need to be exposed to all theories, right?
We can all agree that it is good for children to be exposed to many different theories. It is a great north star. This doesn't mean children should be exposed to ALL theories. That is impossible because there is far more material in this world than there is time and resources to teach it. So stop letting chemjeff get away with an unworkable platitude and ask him to explain why THIS specific subject should be taught to children, instead of "capitalist propaganda" or Intelligent Design, or Fascist Theory or the founding principles of the American Republic.
We can all agree that it is good for children to be exposed to many different theories.
No, actually, we can't. Whenever this subject pops up, there are always a bunch of people who demand that schools only "teach the basics" and avoid anything remotely controversial. I absolutely disagree with that. An education that caters only to the lowest common denominator is not an education worth having; the products of that type of 'education' are not critical thinkers, but zombies who can regurgitate the 'correct' facts.
"and avoid anything remotely controversial"
I love pretending that racism is merely "remotely controversial" when said hated is in our political intrests.
Call me the Uncle Screwtape of CRT.
America is a constitutional republic that is at supposed to be operating on free market principles of capitalism. So no, we don’t just scattershot a bunch of Marxist crap at them to see wha they like best. Of course you want to do that, because you’re not a libertarian. You’re a leftist.
If you have it your way, small children would be exposed to all manner of sexual deviancy, Marxism, leftist racial hatred and pseudo historical leftist propaganda.
You want to groom children on every level. You’re a predator, or at least you live vicariously through predators.
Do you know what the word deflection means?
I am straight saying post modernism and critical theory should not be taught in public schools. That isn't a deflection moron.
Weren't you just saying you don't support critical theory or post modernism over the weekend?
Deflect, distract, dissemble. A nice summary of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The 'radical' is right there in his handle.
I am straight saying post modernism and critical theory should not be taught in public schools.
Then you support indoctrination in schools, by prohibiting certain subjects based on viewpoint.
Weren't you just saying you don't support critical theory or post modernism over the weekend?
Not supporting an idea, is not the same as wanting that idea prohibited in schools. I don't support slavery, but I certainly want kids to learn about slavery. See the idea now?
2+2=4 is indoctrination?
What the actual fuck.
Slavery was taught before critical praxis was ever developed dumbass.
What you are defending here is teaching kids society is racist to them and kids have privilege based on skin color.
What you just did is actually deflection. You argue something nobody is saying, no laws make illegal.
He’s ,internally saying only teaching the existence of these things instead of actually indoctrinating small children with them is indoctrinating them. Pedo Jeffy is the epitome of a shitweasel.
I don't support slavery, but I certainly want kids to learn about slavery. See the idea now?
No. Kids can learn about slavery as history. CRT and post-modernism are not history. They are particularly nasty opinions.
You never learn. You never concede a good point. You never acknowledge the evil of Marxism. You are a waste of energy. I am putting you back on mute.
He won’t even acknowledge the evil of pedophilia.
"Not supporting an idea, is not the same as wanting that idea prohibited in schools. I don't support slavery, but I certainly want kids to learn about slavery. See the idea now?"
Should Intelligent Design be taught in school, Chemjeff? If so, how should it be presented?
If both CRT and ID were taught in school, then do you think they ought to be presented the same way in school? If not, how would you treat them differently?
I have no problem with ID taught in schools as one idea among many in a class on comparative religion.
I have no problem with CRT being taught in schools as one idea among many in a class on sociology.
I just can't let go of my pretense that CRT isn't about teaching children to be racist because my whole pile of lies would collapse without it.
"I don't support slavery, but I certainly want kids to learn about slavery.
CRT is about indoctrinating kids into a wokified version of Nazi race theory.
Public schools have taught them about the evils of slavery for decades without feeling the need to turn them into racists.
Stop being dishonest.
He has claimed as recently as February that the 2020 presidential election contained "clear evidence" of "election fraud," often saying explicitly that "the election was stolen" from Trump.
There was fraud. We know this for a fact. People have already been convicted. Thousands of double voters exist and have been identified. Is reason still claiming there was zero fraud?
How much is the only question. But the left refused any type of forensic audits, only letting recounts occur.
Yes, there was fraud, as there is fraud in every election. The evidence that "the election was stolen" is very thin.
Very thin is a big leap from the previous nothing. It's hard to fathom that enough votes were cast illegally to steal it, but the fact that there was some real shady shit going on doesn't help. The left has impeded investigating at every turn. I don't blame them if they have something to hide, but if it's the most secure election in history, they should be screaming from the rafters to open the books.
No it isnt. Lol.
2 dozen court cases have shown illegal election law changes. Many of which led to illegal actions like ballot harvesting.
You really are willfully ignorant.
2 dozen court cases have shown illegal election law changes. Many of which led to illegal actions like ballot harvesting.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, the presence of ballot harvesting, even if illegal, does not per se prove that the ballots themselves are fraudulent.
Yes that is deflection.
The election laws are in place to try to imply integrity. Adding someone paid in the middle to coerce or get ballots break a chain of custody of a voter to the election official.
But you are pro voter fraud. We get it. It helps your team win.
"But you are pro voter fraud. We get it. It helps your team win"
Yup
He will never admit the truth. No matter what. He’s stupid, but he at least learned you never give up the con, no matter what.
The majority of the complaints are just standard democratic talking points.
Pretty shit article over all.
To Jesse, criticizing a Republican necessarily means using "standard democratic talking points". Because to him there are only two sides, Team Red or Team Blue. If you criticize Team Red then you must be on Team Blue. If you criticize Team Blue then you must be on Team Red.
Well, that's not *entirely* true. HE is allowed to criticize Team Red (verrry occasionally) and still remain in good standing in the tribe in his own mind.
What list of facts in the article were valid or substantiated in the article jeff?
Defend the left at all costs right?
It was a bit thin on specifics, I will give you that.
Defend the left at all costs right?
Nope. Because "attacking the right" is not the same as "defending the left". Only tribalist morons fall for that kind of claptrap.
Everyone who criticizes the left is a trump cultost though right?
At least you admit you were fucking wrong here, yet still had the need to defend the left lol.
You’re a tribalism moron, and a lying hypocrite. You must be a truly excruciating creature to endure for anyone that has to deal with you in kerosine.
I mean, I don't take it seriously because of turds like you acting like "libertarians" when you're really just embarrassed authoritarians.
At least you admit to what you are unlike jeff.
What authoritarianism? Letting ohio voters decide their own candidates?
Because fair and honest democratic elections are the hallmarks of authoritarians, right?
I'm reminded of the social media fact checks during Covid. If they keep repeating *anything* long enough, it becomes true. People that pay attention know better, but will always be the Joe Fridays of the world.
I also note that you decided to avoid JD Vance's more controversial and more explicitly anti-liberty positions.
Do you support Vance's proposal for the state to confiscate the funds of nonprofits that he doesn't like?
Weird. The author of the article did as well. Almost like I am commenting on the article.
I dont live in Ohio. I dont give a shit how they vote.
You're avoiding the question. Do you support JD Vance's proposal, stated right there in the article, for the state to "seiz[e] the assets of nonprofits whose politics he does not like"?
Come on, Jesse, can you bring yourself to criticize a truly outrageous position that comes from a Team Red member? You claim to be someone who is willing to criticize a Republican when they do or say something that is truly awful. Is this one of those times?
Do you have the actual legislative text jeff? Or are you going off vague comments to make the argument be about what you decide?
Here are JD Vance's own words:
"Why don't we seize the assets of the Ford Foundation, tax their assets, and give it to the people who've had their lives destroyed by their radical open borders agenda?"
It's a yes or no question. Do you agree? Yes or no?
I don't. But isn't he just rhetorically summoning Team Jeff's mantra about the rich?
How about you give us the whole context of that statement, Jeffy.
You left off a very clear qualifier in that quote. JD Vance is not saying "Let's arbitrarily seize these assets." He is saying "We should not treat political activists as charities." In the full tucker interview, his opening preamble is that IF we are going to have redistribution as AOC wants, then targets of that redistribution should include the NGOs that are advocating for the redistribution in the first place.
I'm opposed to wealth distribution in general, but if AOC is going to have her way, I have ZERO problem with taxing NGOs for their capital gains, too.
There are already IRS regulations forbidding nonprofits from political activism. If particular nonprofits are violating these rules, then the solution is to enforce the rules, not arbitrarily pick and choose whose assets we get to seize today.
Here we pretend that the whole IRS Targeting Controversy never happened. We hope that you all are as dumb and forgetful as we are.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups-flna1C9873823
If true, that’s different than what you’re asserting. As usual. I knew you would be incapable of honesty.
And you have defended the ministry of truth for 5 days lol. And you want to talk about other views??
And NOW you are deflecting for Team Red, trying to change the subject, when confronted with something truly outrageous and anti-liberty from a fellow Team Red tribal member.
No, I'm calling out your consistent bullshit.
Is that why you continually avoid my question?
Vance literally summons AOC as the justification for that potential action, and yet you and ENB pretend it's policy and not a rhetorical argument about consequences.
Here's his statement in context (the attached video, not the cherrypicked quote): https://twitter.com/ohiowarroom/status/1443025227106168833?s=12
You're such a dishonest clown.
He’s not capable of honesty.
"This is why people don't take Reason as a serious publication anymore."
Then why don't you go away? The Unz Review is waiting for you.
If he left out the sill Trump reference, and the last sentence '...everybody who values liberty loses ...' the article isn't that bad but it completely fails to consider how much worse it would be if someone from the left or a libertarian won the general election in the Fall.
Government Almighty forbid that a libertarian should win office and shrink Government Almighty, which loves us all, FAR more than we will EVER know!
Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers
Government loves me, This I know,
For the Government tells me so,
Little ones to GAWD belong,
We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
And gives me all that I might need!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
DEA, CIA, KGB,
Our protectors, they will be,
FBI, TSA, and FDA,
With us, astride us, in every way!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
Nathaniel Branden sentence-completion exercise for sockpuppets: "Great minds talk about ideas, small minds talk about __________."
Looters? The ‘Gee Oh Pee’? Comstock laws? Infiltrators?
Hank buddy, you’re gonna lose Roe. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
Suck it bitch.
How could an actual libertarian winning make things worse and not much, much better? Even one libertarian in the Senate would wield tremendous power.
So this implies Trump is super smart and rarely makes mistakes? OK. An odd premise when he is known to deal with national/international concerns. Seems like a bright guy but certainly not flawless. Most Ohioan's are probably dealing with Ohio issues/ people. How us that for better REASONing?
But recently, Mandel has tacked toward his party's hard-right: While in 2012 he introduced Mitt Romney at a presidential campaign rally, last year he proclaimed, "Mitt Romney is a loser." He has claimed as recently as February that the 2020 presidential election contained "clear evidence" of "election fraud," often saying explicitly that "the election was stolen" from Trump. After Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R–Ohio) voted to impeach Trump after his conduct on January 6, Mandel called Gonzalez a "traitor."
Where once Mandel focused on kitchen table issues like jobs and the economy, his campaign has been characterized by red meat for the Trump base—he has referred to an "invasion" of "illegals" at the Southern border "funded" by George Soros, claimed COVID-19 to be a "bioweapon manufactured by the Chinese Communist Party," and blamed the pandemic on the "deep state." And it seemed to be working: For much of last year, Mandel ran comfortably ahead in a crowded field.
Damn, that's a lot of scare quotes in just two sentences.
Damn, that's a lot of scare quotes in just two *sentences.
Ugh, *paragraphs. Need an edit feature.
How dare they call near 200k illegal immigrants a month an invasion.
Team Red calling migration of illegal immigrants an "invasion" is analogous to Team Blue calling the riots on Jan. 6 an "insurrection". The intent here is to purposefully use inflammatory language to trigger an emotional response that they think will be favorable for their team. It is just rank demagoguery. If we want to be truthful and precise in our description of current events, it behooves us to avoid such inflammatory descriptions.
What would call 200K crossing illegally per month? What word is more accurate than invasion?
Migration.
Invssion - An act of invading.
It is accurate.
Sorry words hurt you so much.
What word do you reserve for what Russia is doing to Ukraine?
Is accidentally bumping you with my elbow now "genocide"?
Both are invasions.
in·va·sion (ĭn-vā′zhən)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. The entry into bodily tissue and subsequent proliferation of an injurious entity, such as a pathogen or tumor.
3. An intrusion or encroachment: Your reading her diary was an invasion of her privacy.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/invasion
You're using definition number one, Jesse number three.
Migration is accurate, but does not carry the negative connotation that the word 'invasion' does. Birds migrate, but armies invade.
Of all the words that could be used to describe undocumented migrants crossing the border, the one commonly chosen by Team Red - invasion - is the one that casts the migrants in a sinister light. That is my point.
Invasion is accurate.
'Cause Der JesseBahnFuhrer the authoritarian doesn't like the illegal sub-humans, so the rest of us shouldn't like them either. Der JesseBahnFuhrer the authoritarian will decide for the rest of us, some of who want affordable labor that spoiled Americans won't perform!
invasion noun
in·va·sion | \ in-ˈvā-zhən \
Definition of invasion
1: an act of invading
especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder
2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion
FFS, you even lie about the definition of words, Jeff.
Are you paid by the lie rather than the post?
All 3 definitions define UNWANTED "invasions" by those being invaded!
I would LIKE for people from other nations to come here of their own free will, if they want to come, and their intentions aren't evil! ("Taking our jerbs" ain't evil, especially if no one here wants the jerbs, and will actually DO them.) There are OTHER people in the USA who feel as I do! Y'all authoritarians are using non-standard language to try and shove shit down our throats!
If You shove shit down my throat, yes, You and Your Shit are invading my body!
If You WANT to eat, do You say that the food is "invading" You, Oh Perfect One?
If they were wanted they wouldn't have to sneak in illegally, you stupid fuck.
If the witches had been wanted, no one would have burned them!
If the Jews had been wanted, no one would have gassed them!
Might doesn't make right, and not all laws are just!
Perhaps the REAL libertarians should start calling the non-libertarian voters "invaders of the polling stations"!
Here's where our forcibly-retired old mailroom clerk pretends that illegals crossing the border are the same thing as the holocaust.
At Chemjeff+ even our idiots are versed in sophistry.
I only wish they hurt him more.
Birds migrate.
People, assumed to be sentient and bound by laws, invade.
My invited dinner guests are invading my home? And the uninvited ants are NOT invading my home?
Who knew?!?
You never invited them you dishonest fuck. And if the country had invited them then they wouldn't be illegal.
Spoken like the coercive collectivist that You are, Oh Perfect One!
Is there any law of physics, chemistry, etc., that disallows ME from interacting willingly (socially, economically, etc.) with illegal sub-humans, while You sneer at them? No! These are arbitrary HUMAN laws, and they are unjust and counter-productive! We could each "do our thing", ya know!
Here's a good read for those who still have an open mind... Cato…
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2019/myths-facts-immigration-policy
https://www.cato.org/blog/crime-along-mexican-border-lower-rest-country
Here's where our forcibly-retired old mailroom clerk gets mad and loses the script.
Somehow illegal immigration is anticollectivist or something. An argument that carries weight here but goes against Chemjeff+ policy on the benefits of both illegal immigration and collectivism.
Need an edit feature.
Maybe Elon will buy us one.
"Stable genius."
The entire primary is a clown car of shitty people who will be voted in by even shittier (and dumber, of course) people.
Dolan is probably the only one who isn't freely swinging on Trump's nutsack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy comes to mind...
I skimmed through the article really fast and it looked like a lousy script for V For Vendetta 2 starring Howie Mandel and Natalie Portman.
I would go to see that.
Joe, I noticed you didn't bother noting what exactly led to Portman "choosing" to retire. We get you're a DNC shill with no concept of the real world not provided by TYT but please try to track. The invasion frotouthern border is a jobs and economy problem for millions of Americans, but please, go back to throwing shade at Republicans while backing Democrats as they both figuratively and literally burn this country to the ground.
First tell us what Josh Mandel's middle initial is.
Weird what it takes for you to classify positions as "right".
Right is a lot more popular than national socialist. The expression seems to have benefited from vagueness back when Hitler was accurately described as "a sort of cross between Billy Sunday and Father Coughlin." The French Red Terror conflated papacy with monarchy and chose that as the enemy to be guillotined. None on the soi-disant Left admit to endorsing communist Stalinism, so both euphemisms can safely be interpreted as "cowardly looter," separated mainly by degrees of mystical faith.
Lol wut?
How obtuse do you have to be to not understand the first statement as the same as the last? Which of course is the same as what you'll see coming out of HyR, but without the mean twits.
Making it authoritarian how?
If calling Mitt Romney a loser makes you hard right, we should all strive to be the rightest of right.
Here is JD Vance:
“I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left,” [Vance] said. “And turn them against the left. We need like a de-Baathification program, a de-woke-ification program.”
“I think Trump is going to run again in 2024,” he said. “I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”
“And when the courts stop you,” he went on, “stand before the country, and say—” he quoted Andrew Jackson, giving a challenge to the entire constitutional order—“the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets
So he is endorsing an explicitly illegal act - fire civil servants without due process or cause - and then topping it off with ignoring judicial orders that would stop the illegality.
illegal act - fire civil servants without due process or cause
Shocking! jeffy loses all pretense of being a libertarian and shills for unelected bureaucrats. He must still be drunk from last night.
Take a note, sarcasmic, this is the man you have held up as one of the 'most libertarian' commenters. How is anyone supposed to believe you when you swear you are not a partisan troll?
Do you favor firing bureaucrats illegally?
The constitution gives the power of employment in the executive branch the power of how they operate. Congress created civil service laws to protect people, not the constitution.
Why should unelected people be able to go against the will of elected politicians? They are subverting the will of the electorate.
But you hate people making choices you disagree with.
You like the deep state because you agree worh their views. Youre the authoritarian here.
You are dodging the question because you know it looks bad for your team.
The civil service laws govern how non-political employees are hired and fired in the executive branch. Even if you think they ought to be repealed, right now, they are the law of the land. JD Vance advocates that a future President Trump should ignore the law and fire the "disloyal" employees, and then ignore the inevitable court judgment declaring it illegal. Do you support that position? Yes or no?
I'm not dodging the question you retarded shit.
For 4 years civil servants openly created a resistance to resist a duly elected official. You defend that.
They should be able to be fired. This isn't a deflection. It is why civil service laws are dangerous. And you defend it.
I'm not dodging the question
...as you continue to dodge the question with your favorite tactic: when confronted with a difficult scenario, just go on attack mode and flail around and make accusations to distract from avoiding the question.
Do you advocate, as JD Vance does, for a future President Trump to ignore existing civil service laws and fire the "disloyal" employees, and then ignore the inevitable court judgments?
I advocate that they fire them using existing civil service laws. Most of what they did was criminal.
Then you disagree with JD Vance then, right?
Yes, I disagree with JD Vance.
The first thing congress needs to do however, after the election, is to work on a way to make the entire civil service fireable.
Which laws would be violated?
JD Vance advocates that a future President Trump should ignore the law and fire the "disloyal" employees,
Of course.
To BE a civil service employee one must swear the oath. If one violates that oath, one MUST be fired.
'It's only logical. even in the private sector. An employee who is actively working to destroy the business they work for gets fired.
Why the hell are our civil servants exempt from this?
The public employee unions are an inherent conflict of interest. The employees comprise a significant portion of voters in addition to contributing funds to the election of those who represent the management side of the negotiations. Judges should throw out their labor agreements which are their only claim to due process in employment. They should be subject to at will employment like everybody else.
This is the only reasonable libertarian position.
Civil service laws are a different issue than public employee unions. Your response is a non-sequitur.
Bullshit.
No they aren't. You celebrated 4 years of active resistance in government to an elected executive. That is authoritarian.
Yes, they are. Civil service laws have been around since the 1880's. We didn't have public sector unions until the 1940's.
This is exactly what's going on in response to the leak that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade.
Umm, I don't believe Biden has said anything yet about this leaked draft opinion.
And all the other democrats like Schumer and Pelosi calling for court packing?
Biden's handlers haven't decided how to program him to respond. It will be fun to watch the situation play out.
If betting were legal I'd wager the same dupes who still believe Trump won after he lost BOTH the popular AND electoral votes now believe the Supreme court is striking down the ruling it copied from the 1972 LP platform and issued in 1973--a month after the voting was over with. Faith is impervious to reality, but election results aren't.
Faith is impervious to reality, but election results aren't.
Well, some well-placed facebook ads can certainly bend reality in alarming ways. Or did the 2016 election not happen?
"You can have my baby when you scape it from my warm, nurturing uterus!" is what they honestly want, but it just doesn't work very well as a catch-phrase.
Supposed to be a reply to Homple.
Agreed. It's hard to make sentiment into a pleasing sound bite.
One-half of the voting population doesn't include Joe, and shuns the LP for selling them out in 1980. Those ladies might be curious to know how many of these Kleptocracy party candidates want men with guns to force women to reproduce against their will. I'd wager they can find out elsewhere.
You should be restricted to saying four things.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Hand me that thing
4. Boy, this work is hard
i>"bioweapon manufactured by the Chinese Communist Party," and blamed the pandemic on the "deep state." And it seemed to be working: For much of last year, Mandel ran comfortably ahead in a crowded field.
Well, he's wrong about one thing here. It was likely not a "bioweapon" created by the Chinese Communist Party, it was likely a lab experiment funded by Fauci designed to help scientists understand how to fight a future pandemic, and the shit leaked from the lab accidentally.
I would like some evidence for this oft-repeated assertion that "traditional conservative principles [include] personal freedom or constraining the size of government"
This smugly-repeated bullshit is a zombie claim, made so that conservatives can feel good about their lurv of freedumb.
Why do you hate freedom?
"If even Donald Trump can't tell the candidates apart, what hope do Ohioans have?"
Pretty insulting to Ohioans to suggest that they are at a lower standard than Donald Trump's mental capacity.
Good thing old Joe can elucidate and never fucks up a name, huh.
"Pretty insulting to Ohioans to suggest that they are at a lower standard than Donald Trump's mental capacity."
More insulting that a TDS-addled pile of shit would assume to be capable of judging anyone's mental capacity.
Anyone endorsing people in the primary has the same problem. The primaries are to pick that parties candidates, that means they will have more similarities as party members than differences, unlike the general election where their polices are often exact opposites. The NY Times and Washington Post face the same dilemma in primaries. What kind of sickness is it that Reason has to throw Trumps name into everything?
Vance was a Never-Trumper. Could be Trump is trolling him.