J.D. Vance Takes Victory in Ohio GOP Senate Primary
The former venture capitalist will face Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democratic nominee, in November's general election.

In a midterm year when any single election could tip the balance of power in Washington, primaries can become spectacles in themselves. And on Tuesday, the singular spectacle of the Ohio Senate primary came to an end when voters chose J.D. Vance, former venture capitalist and author of Hillbilly Elegy, as the Republican nominee. Vance will face the Democratic nominee, Rep. Tim Ryan, in November to replace outgoing Sen. Rob Portman (R–Ohio).
Ohio's GOP Senate primary has been a long, bruising fight to the finish. For most of the last year, six of the seven total candidates jockeyed for the public endorsement of former President Donald Trump. In the end, Trump waited so long to endorse that the candidates started to think that he never would. But ultimately, two weeks before the primary, Trump finally threw his support behind Vance, giving his campaign a much-needed shot in the arm after months of middling poll numbers.
Along with his onetime boss and biggest donor, Peter Thiel, Vance represents a more authoritarian and nationalistic wing of conservatism, more open to restrictionist economic policies. He blames free trade and immigration for holding back the middle class. And he has expressed a willingness to use the power of the government to punish nonprofits whose politics he disagrees with.
In the November general election, Vance will face Ryan, who has served for nearly two decades in Congress, and who briefly ran for president in 2020. Ryan's victory Tuesday was not a surprise, as he had consistently led the Democratic primary field.
In April, Ryan received criticism from Asian American groups for an odd campaign ad in which he blames China for America's ills by repeating China over and over again. Earlier this year, Ryan called on President Joe Biden to retain "safeguard tariffs" on certain Chinese-made products, calling them "vital to U.S. competitiveness." When Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese steel in 2018, Ryan defended the move.
Vance supports tariffs on China as well. In fact, in his victory speech, Vance thanked Robert Lighthizer, Trump's top trade adviser and tariff proponent, whom he referred to as "one of the great trade thinkers of the past 30 years of American history."
Unfortunately, any Ohio voters who understand that tariffs actually raise prices and cost jobs will not have a Senate candidate to represent their interests come November.
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
I for one am glad Reason found a new conservative boogeyman.
Surely Vance must be someone special to be the focus of so much ire given all the primary race results last night.
Every candidate endorsed by Trump won in Ohio and Indiana yesterday. LOL
HE'S SO TOXIC
"The former venture capitalist ..."
OK. This sounds promising. Maybe he's a throwback to the 1980s, when Republicans were the "party of the rich" and therefore could expect some level of Koch / Reason libertarian support?
"... blames free trade and immigration for holding back the middle class."
Aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Nooooooooooo! He's one of those vile economic populists who wants to help the middle class instead of helping billionaires! That's literally the opposite of what Koch / Reason libertarianism stands for. Guess we'll be backing the Democrat as usual.
#VoteDemocratToHelpBillionaires
#CheapLaborAboveAll
What if he becomes a billionaire? Wouldn't that make it all worth it.
Tariffs raise prices. Yawn. Raising the cost of money (interest rates) can raise the cost of buying a house but sometimes 'raising' things is done for the common good. This Country was built on tariffs imposed for the common good and controlling its borders and creating a Military that has prevented outsiders from attacking us.
Yeah, those tariffs - in part - led to the "common good" of 800,000 Americans dying in a great Civil War.
I thought the civil war was about racism?
I agree there were issues with the economic policy between north and south but I think the north was pretty close to asset seizure in their claim on southern cotton.
Tariffs are self-imposed economic sanctions.
So are sanctions a weapon of war or the path to prosperity?
Can't be both, when the only difference between sanctions and trade wars are intentions.
Meanwhile Chapelle was attacked on stage last night by a guy with a knife and gun. Luckily he was tackled quickly by security.
Dave is awesome. My husband has watched his shows for years, but I never heard of him, until the “Trans” bs pushback. So my husband and I watched Chappelle’s most recent Netflix show, “the Closer” and I loved how he went after the LGBTQIAEIEIO alphabet clowns. It was a moving show. Dave rocks. His detractors are the bottom feeders of America
As for JD Vance his book, Hillbilly Elegy, was a home-run for my husband who comes from a similar hillbilly family background. JD’s personal story is compelling esp since he served in the Marine Corps as a Corporal. That Amy Chua was his mentor at Yale speaks volumes of his potential. It doesnt hurt that he is an interracial marriage like me. Not sure what he thinks of homos, but then again my husband and I thinks gays are a sad group, so candidates for or against Gays & Lesbians means nothing to us.
If you have a few hours watch for Dave on Conan OBrien on YouTube. You will waste hours laughing. He was fairly regular on that show.
His character of the crack guy, Tyronne Biggums, is hysterical. Gays have a long history with crystal meth, dating back to the 90s in South Florida, and Ive seen quite a few of them acting tweaked at gay events, bars, etc. Chappelle’s crack character, though comical, brilliantly captures that type of drug induced character. The episode that includes Joe Rogan: priceless. I’ll look for his Conan vids, thanks.
Joe Rogan Meets Tyrone Biggums on “Fear Factor” - Chappelle’s Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vUvQHYc3K0
"His detractors are the bottom feeders of America"
Sadly, they are not. They are the sharks.
Not in nature, only in a highly arbitrary rigid social system that artificially props them up. That they fill the role of sharks is the result of corruption, decadence, and cowardly hate for natural talent.
Thank god they tackled that monster Chapelle. Who knows how many trans people he might have killed with his jokes.
If you want to find fine ladies for casual chat contacts in EU you must to visit Sex in Aplerbeck
Reason won't fucking shut up about bringing in the Ukrainian refugees.
…. Ryan, who has served for nearly two decades in Congress, ….
Reason enough to vote against him.
What a stupid opening. The unelected buerocrats will keep the power regardless who wins.
Jeff was actually defending civil service laws to protect active resistance and pushing of left policies against election results.
Oh look here's Jesse the junkyard attack dog who knows only how to do two things, snarl and attack. He can't participate in honest dialogue. That'snot what junkyard dogs do. He can only attack attack attack.
He is a master baiter. He lays bait in the form of lies about you that you want to refute. Then when you respond he gets to giggle and then come up with more bait. The only difference between this and middle school is the age of the people involved.
Hey. Both of the liars who cry when I post their comments are here lying about what they said in the past.
Hilarious.
You guys do realize your comments are saved and can be linked to right?
You realize that your catalog outs you as an obsessive loser while not proving a thing?
Rich words coming from our shitposter-in-chief and resident troll.
And since you brought up the civil service, and since this article is about Vance, let's just review: Vance wants a future president Trump to fire the civil service and replace them with "his people", which would be a violation of the civil service law; and when the inevitable court judgment happens that declares it illegal, Vance wants Trump to intentionally disregard the courts too.
And yesterday when I attempted to press Jesse about whether he supported Vance's proposal, he refused to say and dodged the question. So, Jesse, have you decided? Yes or no?
I'd have no problem with that. The bureaucratic state has proven that it will not actually do its job if they dislike a policy.
Spoils, bare minimum, made SOMEBODY responsible. Civil service does not.
Are you in favor of Vance's proposal to fire civil servants illegally?
I have no problems with it. Fire all of them. Legally or otherwise. Unions have fewer protections than federal employees.
I'm not going to bemoan the cruel fate of the government drone.
It's not about them. It's about you. I'll put you down then for "let's break the law to achieve my political goals".
We'll put you down.
So youre defending civil service laws that have been used to protect people actively resisting newly elected positions. Literally wha to just said you did and you claimed I lied.
What the actual fuck.
Attack attack attack. No good-faith dialogue, no meaningful response. Just attack. That is why you are nothing but an unthinking junkyard dog that runs on just emotion and instinct. All a dog knows how to do is to attack the intruder. That's what you do.
Lol. He stated your opinion, you said he was lying, then you said that was your position.
Caught again, Lying Jeffy.
No good-faith dialogue
I've yet to see you do anything in good faith even once.
Oh look, here's the junkyard dog's puppy sidekick.
And Jeff, I was clearly against civil service rules dumb fuck.
And again you dodge the question.
Are you in favor of Vance's proposal to fire civil servants illegally?
Let's see if the junkyard dog can stop snarling for a moment to actually answer a question.
LAWL.
The administrative state must be smashed apart, burned to the ground and never put back together.
You don't have a republic with one.
How should this smashing take place? By changing the law, or by executive fiat despite the law?
Our borders have been destroyed by executive fiat, so why not?
Any means necessary, including and not limited to war.
Changing laws with representatives bought and paid for by those same employees?
How about this: Civil service employees forfeit all voting rights while employed by the government. Ditto loss of donation rights to political causes.
Let me ask this then. Is there a scope of executive action that a future President Trump may conceivably exercise that you would think would go too far?
Yes. Like leaving the borders open, or creating the Ministry of Truth. Backing civil rights protections for pedophiles as a protected class. Basically things democrats have done or want to do.
Biden disregards the courts. But you don’t bitch about that, do you?
Reason is critical of a conservative for abandoning principles of free trade that used to be a commonality between libertarians and conservatives (which is, pardon the pun, reasonable criticism because it gives libertarians nobody to support), and what does the peanut gallery do? They attack Reason for not being sufficiently critical of progressives for being progressives. As if attacking Reason makes what they said about Vance untrue, or makes him somehow appealing to people who support economic liberty.
Dude, conservatives have never been supporters of free trade.
They were before Trump.
Neither party was in favor of 100% deregulated international trade, Sure. But both teams used to be far more friendly to the idea.
Free Trade was a 70s-80s experiment that really took off in the 90s.
It makes sense to support an economic theory when it makes sense on paper and real world data is hard to come by. But 30 years later, we have some real world data and Free Trade as envisioned by economic conservatives and libertarians has some real world draw backs that are not sufficiently accounted for in theory - such as the mobility of capital and the interchangeability of people.
It didn’t pan out. Time to move on.
It didn’t pan out. Time to move on.
What does that mean?
From what I can tell billions of people were lifted from poverty as the global standard of living soared.
And thousands of others were brought into poverty and are currently propped up by a massive welfare state.
I'll be happy for billions if it means tolerating thousands.
I'm not terribly concerned if thousands of non-Americans had their standard of living improved if it negatively impacted Americans.
Which it undeniably did.
How is your leveraged buyouts of NAMBLA progressing? I know you’re excited to get that done, as you’re doing it for the kids.
Reagan introduced tariffs you retarded fuck.
They really believe Democrats are the enemies of America. Not hyperbole. And so Reason is coddling evil when they don't utterly denounce Democrats as the treasonous scum that they are. And when Reason criticizes Republicans, they are attacking the only group that can save America from the tyrannical hellscape that Democrats would surely inflict upon us. So Reason needs to knock it off with criticizing Republicans until the Progressive Threat is utterly destroyed.
Oh I've listened to Hannity and such before. I'm quite familiar with the cognitive dissonance that passes for conservatism these days.
And to be fair there are plenty of Democrats who think Republicans are literal nazi fascist monsters, not hyperbole.
I think this type of ridiculous stereotyping can take hold in both teams based on two factors: a self-selected media diet which only delivers the tribal hate, and self-sorting, both physically and virtually, where a lot of committed tribalists don't even know an actual person on the other side. It is easy to regard the other side as monstrous evil if one does not actually know anyone on the other side as just regular people.
It is easy to regard the other side as monstrous evil if one does not actually know anyone on the other side as just regular people.
That goes right back to Ken and his dehumanizing of anyone who disagreed with him. You don't need to know anyone on the other side if you know everything about them. If you know everything about them, any individual who deviates from what you know must be a liar. They're all scum. Just kill them already.
You two fuck yet?
Grow up.
So yeah? Was Dee jealous?
Jeffy is too busy with his takeover of NAMBLA. He wants to run an organization he really believes on.
So half of America are enemies of America. Got it.
Okay fine, a third of America versus a quarter of America, with the vast middle wishing both sides would shut the fuck up. It was one thing when the Wicked Witch was running for president, but stop it with this Manichean (look it up) world view of doom.
I am old enough to remember when Nixon's second election, and my mom telling me that if the other guy won we would be doomed. Every election since then, until now, my mother has told me that if the Democrat won it would mean doom and concentration camps for Christians. But we got through Carter (who has not that bad in retrospect, and an evangelical besides), and we got through Clinton (who in retrospect was not that bad, thanks to be held in check by gridlock), and we got through Obama. Democrats do not spell doom.
So somehow, I think Ohio can survive a Ryan victory. Gosh.
So half of America are enemies of America. Got it.
That's basically it. It's been that way as long as I can remember. Half of the country is Democrats protecting America from the greedy Republicans who would hand over the country to the corporations and make us all wage slaves, while the other half is Republicans protecting America from the evil Democrats who would hand the country over to immigrant welfare queens and turn us into a third world socialist shithole.
Yes. The other side is just as crazy, just in their own particular crazy. I hate this stupid partisan teamsmanship. I don't give a shit about team colors, let's talk about actual issues without pointing fingers and screaming like the Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
- C.S. Lewis
"So half of America are enemies of America. Got it."
Yup! Silly isn't it? And the stupidest part is that the professional partisan media leaders spew this message but they don't really believe it. It is a cynical attempt to drive votes for their team to fool people into thinking the other team is just so unacceptable that they must be stopped at all costs. Take a guy like Sean Hannity. He has lived and worked in New York for years. You can't tell me that he doesn't have good friends in the city who are Democrats and not evil people. So he will socialize with his liberal NYC pals and then go on the radio and denounce them all as treasonous scum. It is cynical in the extreme.
This is a big reason why voting reform in the form of innovations like RCV is so important. If there were more viable choices on the ballot, these scare mongering techniques would be far less powerful. Right now, denouncing Democrats as EVIL drives more votes for Republicans (and vice versa). But with many candidates, denouncing one team as EVIL does not necessarily drive cotes for one's own team, they could go to a variety of other teams. Parties would have a much stronger incentive to actually put forth an affirmative vision, and not just rely lazily on "don't vote for them , they suck".
Gosh I'm so fucking old. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was a buddies with the Clintons and donated to Hillary.
He had to. If you’re a real estate developer in NY, you go along with the democrats to get along. Or your projects don’t get permitted.
"They really believe cancer is the enemy of human bodies."
Eat a bullet, virus
They really believe Democrats are the enemies of America. Not hyperbole.
Careful with this. We spent most of 2020 with mainstream Democrats siding with a Marxist organization whose stated goals are the elimination of the Nation State, the elimination of International borders and destruction of the Nuclear family, while tweeting "burn it all down" in their not-so-subtle show of that support.
And the mainstream left's overt, and very mainstream "war on the west" is fairly well documented. The New York Times explicitly set out to "reframe the founding of America". This isn't some fringe academic movement, this is the stuff that's discussed in the most mainstream of mainstream left and "center left" circles.
Ie, it's not Republicans renaming every place, school and institution in an attempt to frame our past as being foundationally evil.
We spent most of 2020 with mainstream Democrats siding with a Marxist organization whose stated goals are the elimination of the Nation State, the elimination of International borders and destruction of the Nuclear family,
Oh come now. Did large numbers of people (not just Democrats, you know) support the BLM protests (the *protests*, not the riots), BECAUSE of the fringe BLM views on the nuclear family or borders? I think not. I think it was because of their views on racial justice.
If one were to say "Trump receives so much support BECAUSE he had sex with prostitutes, therefore Trump voters are immoral", would that be a fair argument? No - it is true that Trump did have sex with prostitutes, it is true that Trump did receive a lot of popular support, but there is very little evidence that the popular support was BECAUSE of his sex with prostitutes. It is the same deal here.
I don't recall seeing any prominent democrats denouncing the BLM organization for encouraging violence and wanting to tear down existing social institutions. This wasn't some tiny fringe. This was the official organization that received millions of dollars in donations from various corporations and groups and sometimes governments. If you want to blame violence on Jan 6 on Trump, I don't see how you can't blame BLM related violence on BLM (the organization) and those who supported it. Jan 6 was mostly peaceful too.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-condemn-violence/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violent-protests-in-the-last-three-months-idUSKBN25V2O1
His staff did raise funds to bail out rioters. His VP raised funds for them as well.
Good old Jeffy, white knighting for Biden……. again.
Stop pretending that you are anything other than a global Marxist. Probably an acolyte of Soros’s ‘open society’ bullshit.
"Oh come now. Did large numbers of people (not just Democrats, you know) support the BLM protests (the *protests*, not the riots), BECAUSE of the fringe BLM views on the nuclear family or borders? I think not. I think it was because of their views on racial justice."
Did large groups of Southerners support the KKK because of their lynchings or because of their professed support of their values?
It does not matter what positives you might find, the negatives are there and were there. The Left...yes, solely the Left...decided to overlook all of them and deny their basic existence.
A Trump clone vs. a sane Democrat. Should be interesting.
Not a leftist.
not sane either.
Looking at the California ballot, which is a top two primary system, there is literally no Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot. Governor and senate races seem like they have a dozen or more candidates for each race. Crazy.
Back when Top Two got passed I figured it would kick the political machines into action to prevents this kind of primary dilution. Especially on the Republican side. You can't win a Democrat heavy state by splitting the vote between twenty candidates.
Then again, contrary to popular misconception, parties do not choose their candidates. Not in California at least. Anyone who qualifies and fills out the papers can run. So parties can't stop candidates from running in their name. But I would think the parties would at least figure out the one guy they will support in a top two system.
Eh, it's California. I'm screwed either way.
Ohio. Vance on in a three way race. Doesn't necessarily mean he's won the general election. He spent his time groveling towards Trump (who can't even remember his name) and courting the extreme, now he needs to appeal to a purple swing state. He can't do that by being extreme. So we will see what happens. Ryans a tosser too. I think Ohio loses both ways.
If you ever get sick of Cali and decide to move to the opposite corner of the country, I'll buy you a lobster roll and Shipyard Export to wash it down.
I've had both before. At the same time. Unfortunately the tech jobs are still here in the West. But I'm tempted.
What does the location of the job matter when your office is the spare bedroom? Sure the Christmas party sucks, but the commute is great.
Okay, line me up a good tech job. Not web shit either.
I'm just questioning why location matters. I haven't been to an office in six years. Friends of mine with much more talent are also working from home.
"I've had both before. At the same time."
I think it's a bit better when the lobster was in the ocean an hour ago, and the brewery is down the street. Like getting crabs fucking some hippie chick in the alley behind Sierra Nevada. That won't happen in Portland.
Well I was five feet from Boston bay at the time. Does that count as fresh?
What kind of work do you do?
Might be a bunch of Twitter jobs coming up in Texas before long.
Back when Top Two got passed I figured it would kick the political machines into action to prevents this kind of primary dilution. Especially on the Republican side. You can't win a Democrat heavy state by splitting the vote between twenty candidates.
A lot of people thought good things would happen when Top Two got passed. Be very careful what you think will improve when you pass Ranked Choice.
Well Abel Maldanado thought good things would happen. Solid Republican until then. Then he backed this move. I've talked with him, and he was sincere. But not how it turned out.
Ranked choice is the opposite of top two. Top two is deciding for the parties who the parties will run. It nullifies the whole primary process.
Frankly, I think primaries should be for the parties to figure out themselves, not a public affair. But that's another topic. California no longer has primaries.
JD Vance is a piece of shit. I tried to read his autobiography on advice of a friend. It was garbage, I didn't make it a quarter of the way throught the book. Those people will reget electing that Trump testicle gargler.
In April, Ryan received criticism from Asian American groups for an odd campaign ad in which he blames China for America's ills by repeating China over and over again.
LOL. We've spent the last... what... 6 years repeating "Russia" over and over again, but that's not racist.
Russians are white, and white people NEVER fight with other white people because of 'race'!
Whoopi Goldberg approves this message.
Is it interspersed with images explaining what he's blaming on China, or is it just Ryan in a room alone muttering the word over and over again? Doesn't sound anti-Asian either way, though the latter would be indicative of a man in crisis.
"...The former venture capitalist..."
Refreshing!
Someone who hasn't spent his entire career slopping at the public trough, who might have some idea that, oh, shutting down half the economy because of a flu isn't a good idea.
gotta say it like Trump, Tim ... CHY-nuh
Why is Ohio such a big deal suddenly? It's not just Reason. Is it purely because of Vance? I don't get it.
"Vance represents a more authoritarian and nationalistic wing of conservatism, more open to restrictionist economic policies. He blames free trade and immigration for holding back the middle class."
Vance has appropriately criticized China's Communist controlled markets (which is NOT free trade) and has criticized illegal (not legal) immigration.
Seems like Joe Lancaster twists the truth to fit his hatred for the GOP. By the next article, he (and other left wingers) will be calling Vance a "homophobic white supremacist".
Most politicians who latch onto Trump's nutsack for nourishment like Vance are white supremacists if you read between the lines on their speeches and writings.
If his Dem opponent doesn't use Vanz Kan't Danz in his campaign commercials, he deserves to lose.
I'm a free trade guy. But, honestly, at some point, you guys have to come up with a better understanding of why some people are protectionist than stupidity, demagoguery and ignorance. Because, the truth is, that just isn't cutting it. Yes, free trade inevitably does create a net benefit. But, do you know what the whole "net" thing means? It means added up across a whole bunch of people, some of whom gain and, believe it or not, some of whom lose. And, realistically, those losing from the proposition tend to be concentrated in the lower middle class and upper working class in places like Ohio. Saying foreign manufacturers and domestic consumers are going to gain more than they're losing is little consolation for them. And importing a bunch of low-skill labor isn't much of a way to turn things around for them. Add to that libertarians cozying up to the people calling these folks "privileged" probably isn't going to do much to change their opinions.
The real story of this primary isn't so much that Vance won. It's that there were not one, but FOUR patriotic, pro-American, pro-Constitution guys vs. just one George W. Bush style neoliberal globalist who doesn't really give a fuck about any Americans other than the richest of the very rich, and the ONE globalist couldn't manage a plurality against FOUR patriots.
What does this mean? It means that neoliberalism is effectively dead as the dominant force n the republican party and it's not going to come back for a long time, if ever. If Park Slope Welchie Boy and the rest of the Reason fugazis need someone to blame for this, the guy they should blame isn't Trump, it's George W. Bush, who did more to discredit this moribund philosophy than anyone on earth.
I thought Bush was a neoconservative. Now you're telling me he was a neoliberal too? Both? Maybe he is just Neo.
It would be nice though if one day, just one time, we could actually get a serious, intelligent discussion somewhere about all the various reasons why the Bush republican is fading away into oblivion and the Trump republican became ascendant, without the whole thing revolving around insults and name-calling
But I'm smart enough to know that will never ever happen, because the rich and powerful want absolutely no part of that discussion.
He knows Kung Fu.
Neoconservative = neoliberal, they just market themselves to slightly different audiences
J.D. Vance garnered a total of 340,991 votes out of 1,059,113 cast. or a 'whopping' 32.2%. Far from a MAGA Victory, there were some 718.122 voters, or more than 2/3, who preferred someone else. Not much of a victory to crow about. Once again, the voters are left with a candidate who isn't favored by even close to a majority. No wonder we wind up with lousy representatives in Congress. If he wins by the same margin, or simply less than 50% +1. he'll no doubt claim a huge victory and a mandate. What a sad commentary on democracy.
The message will be that it was a landslide victory for The Donald. If Ohio is unlucky, Vance will be believing that narrative.
I dont remember any of these attack articles on first time dem candidates running in socialism, gnd, etc. In fact reason was positive for candidates running on UBI and other socialist programs.
How many 2018 dem candidates ran on a version of lock them up or ending the 1a? Don't remember any of the attack articles against the left at that time.
Weird how reason has written multiple attack articles on Vance already.
They were saying yesterday that Ohioans shouldn't vote for him, because Trump got his name wrong. That's just desperate.
Perhaps Vance will receive an invitation to Welch’s Red Weddimg.
Well then I suppose Vance had your vote.
Any other laws you would like a future President Trump to break?
What other laws can congress erect to remove power from the executive? So much for co equal branches.
Whatever man. Both you and Nardz sure pretend to have a war boner here on the Internet, but strangely, I don't see either one of you actually lifting a finger. Before the Civil War there was John Brown's Raid. Which one of you is going to be John Brown this time around?