Trump Doubles Down With Pick of J.D. Vance as Running Mate
The Ohio senator has clear authoritarian tendencies.

When then-candidate Donald Trump announced that Mike Pence would be his running mate in 2016, the rationale was clear. Pence, a Midwestern former governor known for his love of Jesus and free markets, would lend credibility with religious voters and traditional conservatives to the otherwise unorthodox nominee. The choice was meant to shore up support among a constituency seen at the time as not yet sold on the former real estate mogul and reality TV star.
The former president's pick of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance in 2024 reflects the sad reality that none of those considerations are relevant any longer. Rather than trying to "balance out" his ticket, Trump is doubling down, selecting a fire-breathing populist with clear authoritarian tendencies, a soft spot for progressive economics, and a connection to the working class.
Vance emerged on the scene in 2016 with the publication of his best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. He was initially a fierce critic of Trump, tweeting that the then–presidential candidate "makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc. Because of this I find him reprehensible." Responding to the Access Hollywood tape, he lamented, "Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man."
But Vance would later delete those tweets and others critical of the 45th president while bidding for Trump's endorsement in the 2022 Ohio Senate primary. He eventually received that endorsement, allowing him to secure the GOP nomination and later the race.
Vance was seen by many as the likeliest veep choice, in part because his "America First" economic and foreign policy leanings are assumed to appeal to blue-collar voters in the swing states that have determined the last couple of presidential elections. In a post on Truth Social announcing the pick, Trump explicitly declared that his running mate would be "strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American Workers and Farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond."
Notably absent from that announcement was any reference to religion. Eight years ago, Pence was considered a savvy choice because of his ability to soothe any misgivings his fellow evangelical Christians might have about casting a vote for a thrice-married philanderer. Today, self-identifying "evangelicals" are among Trump's most loyal supporters.
Vance, a former U.S. Marine and graduate of Yale Law School, has a troubling history of engaging in illiberal rhetoric. He argued on the Senate campaign trail that conservatives should "seize the administrative state" and use it "for our own purposes" rather than trying to roll it back. He floated the idea that a Republican president could simply ignore court rulings he doesn't like. He called for seizing the assets of nonprofits that promote "woke" ideology and redistributing them to politically favored groups. And he told The American Conservative in 2021 that his voters "hate the right people."
When I followed up on that comment with his campaign, a spokesperson reiterated that "JD Vance strongly believes that the political, financial and Big Tech elites…deserve nothing but our scorn and hatred." But on Saturday, after a gunman shot at Trump during a rally, killing at least one bystander, Vance blamed overheated rhetoric from Democrats for the act.
"The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs," he tweeted. "That rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."
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
He was initially a fierce critic of Trump, tweeting that the then–presidential candidate "makes people I care about afraid.
Eh. Kamala once called Biden a racist. “It’s just politics”.
Honest evaluations to be memory-holed when no longer useful.
Exactly. "He's *our* fascist dictator!"
Big difference. I missed the part where Kamala said she was wrong about Joe's history of racism. She may be dumb as a sack of doorknobs, but that was accurate.
JD has acknowledged he was wrong about Trump. Who would ever have thought that Donald Trump would govern reasonably well? I didn't. I was wrong. I'm fine with admitting it.
Kamala Harris, who later became Joe Biden's running mate and Vice President, did address comments she made during a Democratic primary debate in June 2019 regarding Biden's past stance on busing for school integration.
During that debate, Harris criticized Biden's past opposition to federally mandated busing to desegregate schools, saying, "There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me."
Later, after she was selected as Biden's running mate in August 2020, Harris clarified her position. She stated that her criticism was specifically about Biden's stance on busing, not an accusation of racism. In an interview, she said, "I do not believe you are a racist," referring to Biden, and emphasized that they had moved past their differences.
However, it's important to note that Harris did not explicitly say she was "wrong" about Biden's history. Rather, she contextualized her previous statements and affirmed her belief in Biden's character and commitment to racial justice.
As always with political topics, different people may interpret these events and statements differently. If you're looking for more detailed information or direct quotes, I'd encourage you to check recent news sources or official statements from the individuals involved.
Well, there's two choices:
I was wrong.
I knew I was lying at the time I said it.
I guess there's a third choice. I still think you're a horrible human being, but siding with you now advances my political career. I think that was the VPs position when she took the offer.
I've heard very few politicians ever admit they were wrong in the past. It's refreshing when they do. It is an acknowledgement that they recognize they can be wrong and that they evaluate past positions based on new information. For example, Trump has never publicly acknowledged he was wrong about allowing the economy to be shut down for a virus with over 99% survivability. I would prefer he would. A genuine conservative would default to liberty rather than fear. He's flawed, but still the best president in my lifetime based on policy and accomplishments... until Covid. I would prefer to have a candidate to vote for that I agree on things 100%. I don't expect that to ever happen.
Her exact words were "It was a debate" as I recall when asked about it.
whats honest about rhetoric at one point in time on one side of a political calculation vs rhetoric on the other side at a different point in time..... you tell me - which was the honest take?
Tell me when ANY politician is being authentic and when they are lying.
(i know i know - when their lips move...yada yada. I made my point)
So we just have to get a ventriloquist in office and we'll know he's never lying to us.
Isn't that what we have now? We know who the dummy is, we just don't know who's putting on the show.
When attacking in the heat of battle true emotions come out, sometimes exaggerated. Later, those words are word-smithed into something different, usually manufactured.
I too remember when JD was just another cuck. Guess you trash trump supporters shitcanned that freudian projection for this election cycle. Now everyone's a secret democrat!
Ah another sock. Fuck off.
To quote Joe biden "we already have a nigger mayor we don't need any more nigger bigshots"
if this is seriously the best hit piece you can come up with then he's better than I first thought.
Don’t worry, more to come. They haven’t had much time to prepare, or ramp up the hyperbole.
I can’t wait to see Vance crush knees down/heels up Harris in a debate.
It was mostly written in advance, and they can only do so much with the half assed, mad libs style templates they have to work with around here.
[dons tin foil hat]
If the DNC told the FBI to tell the media to get these stories in the can before Crooks fired the shot none of it would look as organic as it does.
I'm reminded of a Colombo episode where a magician convinces an assistant they're in their dressing room and doesn't want to be disturbed by setting up one of several possible outcomes of the trick they were performing and merely selecting the right one.
He said something I disagree with or he didn't articulate himself well so he's literally the worse choice possible. Unless he's Chase, and because he's a Libertarian (now) and his extremely troubling stances in regards to libertarian principles, he's just dreamy and we would never run a story on his bad statements.
his extremely troubling stances in regards to libertarian principles
Such as?
Well good. Now that we've had experience with an old Prez with early dementia who could require a VP who is paying attention and has the balls to take the nuclear football away from the Prez - we can forget all that. Stupid is as stupid does
Stupid is as stupid posts, stupid.
You’re stupid. Or are you too stupid to be aware of that?
He is one of those stupid people who actually believes they're smarter than everyone else, just like LyingJeffy.
To be honest, I’m a little surprised Vance agreed to this. He’s a first-term Senator who’s still quite young for a DC politician in that branch of Congress, and things are so chaotic in this era that even if Trump wins, he’s going to have a hell of job making his case for President in 2028, unless Trump puts a lot of stuff on his plate to get him ready.
Or maybe Trump decided Youngkin and Burgum were too Pence-like for his taste, and having Vance as a second banana, assuming he wins, ensures that the Bush/Cheney/Goldberg wing doesn’t get a foothold back in the party leadership.
I’d have actually held off until 2032 if I was in his position, but maybe he doesn’t want to wait 4-8 years. And if Trump loses, he can always go back to the Senate like Tim Kaine did in Virginia.
If Trump wins, and the term is anything like the first Trump term, then Vance will likely cruise through the 2028 election.
No, Vance has all the fire but none of the rascally charm of Trump. He’ll lose in 28, maybe in the primaries.
hah! charm and trump...2 words you never thought you'd see in the same sentence
Only a moron would say that. Barrack Obama had charm too. I hate him and his politics, but I can still see why he was successful.
He certainly had a lot of charm assigned to him by a fawning media. I remember him coming across as an elitist, and saying a bunch of stupid shit like “there are those that say a black man can’t blah blah blah…”.
I hated his speaking style, but he had charm and the right style of campaign at the right time. I remember two political slogans from my life.
Hope and change. Good one
Make America Great Again. Also excellent.
Both appealed to their party's base, with spillover into the middle group.
Anyone remember McCain's? Romney's? Dukakis? Clinton (either one)?
Look at the picture from Saturday.
He has 4 years to learn. From the Trump perspective, he likes a fighter. JD is not someone the Left wants in power. For all their talk, they know Trump is not a real conservative. JD is a danger they don't want to be president. It's like Biden's VP, but the fear is that he would be more aggressive than Trump, not more incompetent than a man with dementia.
Impeachment insurance, like Quayle or Harris.
Actually just watched Vance's interview at the RNC convention with the blow hard Sean Hannity, he has far more charm than I thought he would, especially when he was talking about his family, his faith, and the working class.
just watched it now - he impressed.
I also wasnt clear on the history of his anti Trump remarks of 10 years ago. His explanation is very understandable and believable. Does it make it true? The answer to that is - does it matter? Can we know? We know thier Dem opposition in the media and across the aisle will say no. Luckily the stock in their credibility has taken a tumble of late.
But climate/covid/fascists will destroy the world in just a few years. Maybe Vance wants to get as high as he can before the end.
He was married to his first wife for 13 years, his second wife for six years, and his current wife for 20 years.
Calling him a “philanderer” is disingenuous.
agreed. let's go with strange vag enthusiast. the guy is a lumpy scowling sack of potatos now but he pulled some top shelf tail back in the day
Not really. The guy's a fucking poonhound, there's no question about that. Just because Bill and Hillary have been married since the 1970s doesn't mean he wasn't chasing tail.
He never stopped.
I must say Slade’s judging him for it on behalf of her fellow Christians, whom she also seemingly judges to be insufficiently condemning him for it, is between astoundingly naive and a rather overt deviation from, if not refutation of, Christian teachings.
Of course, I couldn’t say which, that’s between her an whatever higher power to which she answers.
Yeah. Pretty sure judging others, and concerning yourself with other people's sins rather than your own, is pretty unchristian behavior.
There's nothing actually wrong with judging people's behavior. The left invokes that part of the Bible like a thought-stopping mechanism to ensure the right doesn't criticized their hedonistic deviancy. Christ was primarily warning that people who made criticisms needed to be prepared to undergo criticism themselves.
It's why Christians are supposed to pray every day and humble themselves before God to account for their sins. But that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to point out sinful behavior in others. In fact, sinful behavior is explicitly supposed to be condemned because of the belief that behavior manifested in the flesh is destructive to people in the spirit.
That's right. "Concerning yourself with other people’s sins rather than your own" is un-Christian. Being concerned about other's sins IN ADDITION TO one's own is not.
Once again, to be clear, we aren't talking about worrying about our own sins vs. somebody else's sins. We're talking about worrying about someone else's sins *on behalf of* other people.
Insane *and* evil. It's between a savior complex and a form of self-flagellation.
It's pretty standard fair for The Progressive movement since prohibition/suffrage.
That sweet sweet pre teen tail. That's why sbp loves him
Hillary was probably getting as much pussy as Bill.
Bad pick. Vance is only ok as a Senator, not someone who could inherit Trump’s mantle in 28. Youngkin would have been best since he expands Trump’s appeal and is a realistic 28 choice.
Oh well, Trump being Trump. I wonder if the shooting impacted this choice.
The American people fired President Trump in 2020 because of the poor job he is doing, I expect no less in 2028. Should Trump get elected, and he is certainly well on the road, I see the VP spot as a dead end.
the silliness is ironic. didn't JD play the never trump card? good thing for trump that old joe shit the bed so badly...IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO HE PICKS. hey did you hear that trump headphones are half off? BECAUSE THAT KOOKY KID SHOT OFF ONE OF HIS EARS!
The author omitted that Vance is also an obvious strategy of appealing to young voters who complain about "boomers" in charge of everything.
Yep
He actually bypassed Gen X politicians and went straight to the Millennial generation. Even in Current Year Gen Xers continue to be the red-headed stepchildren of the post-WW2 era.
Ugh, I can't even. Whatever. We'll just have to have a kegger in the woods to drown our sorrow. I'll bring the beer, can you bring something to burn on the bonfire?
hopes and dreams of relevance? ????
I kid – I kid because I love.
(young boomer here)
Party at the Moon Tower!
Bergum and Rubio and much younger than Trump, too.
He also is a rags to riches, blue collar, midwesterner, which is going to play well in western Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. He also was an enlisted Marine. That's actually a pretty big deal, historically. We elect a lot of veterans, but rarely from the enlisted ranks. He also is absolutely going to destroy Harris in the debate.
Good points.
Do you think Harris will debate? That would be entertaining. Although beating her in a debate is a low, low bar.
While Harris did get nuked by Tulsi, she's not as obtuse as people think she is. Those word salads of hers are mainly a misdirection so people won't recognize the marxism she's spewing.
It was never going to matter to voters who Trump picked as VP.
They need someone to appeal to horny wine moms who aren’t already on the tank for the democrats. Vance is 39 and reasonably handsome. He’s also a former marine and Iraq war vet.
And he wrote a book. Without a ghost writer.
He needs someone the deep state hates enough to not try to kill him again
sounds like a threat to our democracy.
Not a Sarah Palin pick, but not an especially good one either. Burgum, Cotton, Youngkin or Scott would have been a better choice.
Sarah Palin was better than McCain. If she had been less attractive, and McCain had not folded his principles in pursuit of power, that team may have won.
Scott has no backbone, same for Cotton (and he's been too anti-Trump without JD's admission he judged him incorrectly). Burgum brings nothing. Youngkin? You have me there. That would have been a better pick. The more I hear about him, the more I like him. Him and DeSantis are the two best governors in the country. I'd rather have Youngkin move on to VP than let Ohio's crappy governor pick a new senator.
Compared to Pence, JD is fantastic.
Maybe Youngkin isn’t interested right now.
As a VA resident, Youngkin has been ok but not good enough that I'd advocate him continuing on to the national stage. He has been very moderate on things he shouldn't compromise on and I'm not a fan of some things he has overreached on. I get that this state has been flipped solid blue for several election cycles (it used to be solid red until the DC suburbs became an oversized portion of the population), but I think he could be doing much better
I thought Cotton is a neocon. Glad he wasn't the pick.
Burgrum is boring and a complete unknown.
Scott or Youngkin would have been better picks than Vance.
If she had been less attractive, and McCain had not folded his principles in pursuit of power, that team may have won.
McCain was always going to have a slim chance at best after 8 years of Dubya, but he ultimately blew his shot when he stupidly "suspended" his campaign to go back and grandstand about TARP. And he was completely clueless about the rising populism of the GOP base that began in that year, who were growing increasingly sick of the neocon wing of the party. Palin's speech at the convention was a barnburner, and irrespective of her own political skills, the GOPe should have been aware enough of what was happening to actually accommodate that wave instead of trying to fight it up until Trump finally booted their ass in 2016.
Burgum is actually a really good governor. Yeah, a lot is because North Dakota has a lot of oil money, but Burgum realized the best way to take advantage of that oil revenue was by not charging really high taxes on the oil companies. That low taxation would encourage more investment by the oil companies, which would mean more revenue and better, more high paying jobs for western North Dakota, and area that was fairly economically stagnant (being largely agricultural in basis).
I voted for Palin, not McCain (though mostly I was voting against Obama's socialism.)
I don't really like any of those short list options. All too boring and unlikely to aid in implementing the policies I want. I heard Desantis, Ramaswamy, Rubio, and even Gabbard were part of the short list. Vance isn't my first choice from this expanded list, but I'll take him over any of the ones you listed
Vance is great. He's 100% correct. The left instigated the assassination attempt. They have called the right (even Libertarians) Nazis for decades. You want the rhetoric turned down? Try to go 6 months without a major figure from your side equating Trump with Hitler or calling conservatives like me a "threat to democracy." Just last week one of their congressman said Trump needed to be eliminated. Biden said it's time to put him in the bullseye. Let's not pretend Biden has offhand comments. He can barely read the script. It's intentional. Remember Chuck Schumer's threat "you will reap the whirlwind" and next week one of the lefties travelled across the country to murder the intended victim as called for.
How many times have leftists tried to murder conservatives or even semi-conservatives? Steve Scalise might have an answer. Maybe Bret Kavanaugh?
8 years of having Obama as president and not one single member of the "white nationalist" Republican Party tried to assassinate him. Trump's life has been under threat regularly.
I was actually surprised that nobody took a shot at Obama. Was security for him that much better or were people with ideological or racial issues with him not actually that interested in violence?
It's no surprise that someone took a shot at Trump. My issue is that the timing and details tell a story that it isn't some lone wolf crazy but likely a politically motivated hit job with coordination from deep state and/or democrats
I’m not surprised one bit. Those on the right saw the sun rise day after day, and bitched about the big O’s policies, and played army in the woods.
It’s the ones on the left (mainly progressives) that shoot up places.
That just shows how lazy the MAGA types are, and how productive Democrats can be.
MAGA types still have a memory of the 10 Thou Shalt Nots, the Donkeys are unprincipled drones.
Do you think they would have left a rooftop 140 yards away, with a clear line of sight, undefended if Obama or Biden were speaking?
There were several attempts on his life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_incidents_involving_Barack_Obama
When I was in school a lifetime ago, in debate the first person to invoke Hitler or Nazis was declared the loser. No exceptions. It meant your argument was invalid.
That was what was known as the "reductio ad hitlerum," a play on the "reductio ad absurdum." It was coined by Leo Strauss to mean what you wrote: the one who first invokes the Nazis or Hitler automatically loses the argument.
Mike Godwin kinda stole it in the 1990s when he coined "Godwin's Law."
Given Vance's previous hostility towards Trump, this could be seen as a unity ticket.
And an example of how Trump rewards those who move toward him.
He argued on the Senate campaign trail that conservatives should "seize the administrative state" and use it "for our own purposes" rather than trying to roll it back. He floated the idea that a Republican president could simply ignore court rulings he doesn't like. He called for seizing the assets of nonprofits that promote "woke" ideology and redistributing them to politically favored groups. And he told The American Conservative in 2021 that his voters "hate the right people."
None of this you've ever had a problem with before, so long as it was the Democrats doing it. The ends justify the means, so long as they're your ends.
This is a big reason Trump is popular. It's also a reason I've refused, to date, to vote for him. Trump doesn't promise conservatism, or Christian values, or anything resembling Constitutional principles. What he promises is to take the guns that Democrats have used on Republicans, and put it in Republican hands to turn on Democrats. This resonates. Not with me, but MAGA eats it up like birthday cake.
And THAT'S why Democrats hate him so much. Same way y'all loved Harry Reid's nuclear option to destroy the filibuster - until it got used against you by Cocaine Mitch in a far, far worse way than you ever expected. You don't hate Trump, or Vance. You hate yourself, reflected in them but turned against you.
Vance sounds worse than Trump in that respect.
Yes.
Although from a practical standpoint, you're going to have to sieze it and wield it just to undo 40 years of misuse and to clear out all the ticks buried in the administrative positions.
The trick is to understand that if you love something (America) you have to be willing to let go (of power... at some point - hopefully when the job of cleansing the Augean stables is done)
Interesting that a guy who spouts hateful rhetoric blames hateful rhetoric for the attempt on Trump’s life.
Even more interesting is that the people defending his hateful rhetoric also blame hateful rhetoric for the attempt on Trump’s life.
Yet none of the above want their team to stop the hateful rhetoric.
It’s as if they really want hateful rhetoric to stir up violence.
You just said Trump paraphrased Hitler this morning. Lol.
He probably doesn’t remember. Long term alcoholism is a hell of a thing.
You leftists are violent pieces of shit with poor impulse control. You riot, rage, and rape when you don’t get your way. Now you tried to murder Trump, and managed to kill one of his supporters. Which I’m sure you’re thrilled about.
You have blood in your hands Drunky, so it’s time for you to STFU for a change. Or maybe you’re finally ready to nut up and follow through on your threats against me.
this is 'who's on first' level confusing
But i think you're trying to say that trump spouts hateful rhetoric.
I cant think of any examples though except maybe when he called Rosie Odonnel fat, but then again she is fat. Do you have any others?
Go back and read the title of the article. Maybe read the article itself.
you are incoherent as usual
I think at this point he could pick even Chase Oliver and still win.
I get the joke you're making, but to turn it serious for a sec - that'd be the absolute worst choice Trump could make.
He's got a lot of momentum right now. Teaming up with a LGBT pedo would erase all of it instantaneously.
Hey! Chase is also a pro Vax mandate, pro Marxist, pro mask mandate, high tax, unlimited immigration supporter also! Don't sell Chase Oliver short on how not libritarian he is!
>The Ohio senator has a troubling history of engaging in illiberal rhetoric.
Uh, Slade, so does Biden - and all the top Democrats. You seem to forget that the majority of political violence this country has experienced over the last 10+ years is from the Left-wing.
You expect illiberal rhetoric from Democrats though.
Republicans normally pay lip service to the Constitution.
Am I the only one who thinks he looks like Wil Wheaton without glasses?
Wil Wheaton is a legitimate spaz, though, who has nothing other than the lame-ass "Look what a massive nerd I am!" act he's been pulling since Chuck Lorre decided to do him a favor and put him on Big Bang Theory.
Vance is a lot more capable than people are giving him credit for. Most people still think he's nothing more than a slack-jawed yokel because of his book, and he uses that prejudice to his advantage. Same thing with Fetterman and his Lurch-looking visage. These are not stupid guys by any stretch of the imagination.
I think of him more as a brown-nosing principles-free Ivy League Deep State operative who would sell his grandma to grift and obtain political power. Have I got him wrong? I didn’t read his book, but anyone who thinks Appalachia is going to benefit from the stripping of government benefits for this region and open season that resource extraction companies are going to now have has probably spent too much time at right wing think tanks.
Have I got him wrong?
That's SOP for you, shriek.
This isn’t a beauty contest.
'The Ohio senator has a troubling history of engaging in illiberal rhetoric.'
You know who else engaged in illiberal rhetoric?
Cicero?
Jesus?
Nick Gillespie?
Matt Welch?
Jacob Sullum?
Elizabeth Nolan Brown?
Sheldon Richman?
Eric Boehm?
Ron Bailey?
Fiona Harrigan?
Billy Binion?
Christian Britschgi?
C.J. Ciaramella?
Shikha Dalmia?
Pete Suderman?
Emma Camp?
Barry Goldwater? Ronald Reagan?
They do need someone young to go head-to-head with AOC in 2028.
Black conservatives are fond of asking Democrats what have Democrats done for Black people. In that vein, I’ll ask my fellow White people what have Republicans done for White people? You know… besides nativist rhetoric and appeals to Christian nationalism?
I’m doing pretty well (a couple mil in 401ks, paid off cars and houses) so I don’t think the election of Biden or Trump will matter one way or the other for me personally. But it wasn’t always that way with me and the question I always asked conservatives when they were around was, why in the fuck would someone who makes as little money as I do vote Republican? I still have the same question so I’ll pose it again here.
"In that vein, I’ll ask my fellow White people what have Republicans done for White people?"
Sure, ill bite.
The only thing I want (in this specific area), and the R's deliver, is simply not following the rhetoric of the left that white people are terrible and need to be at the back of the line for the sake of diversity. Just stop raced based incentives and politics. The left and Dems are swimming in it, the right pushes back against it. That's more than enough for me.
"Christian nationalism" is left wing twitter bluanon garbage. Of the right wingers I know and normally chat with, 75% of them aren't christian. The theocratic fascist dictatorship is a meme at this point more deserving of mockery than any actual consideration.
Who on the Left is saying that White people are terrible? I mean, there are ~330 million people in the United States now so I don’t doubt it exists. Are we talking about anyone that has any real power or are you attributing power to purple-haired goth girl in an on the street interview. Clarifying examples, please.
The only thing I want (in this specific area), and the R’s deliver, is simply not following the rhetoric of the left that white people are terrible and need to be at the back of the line for the sake of diversity.
That is interesting. So your recommendation, to a poor white person on why he/she should vote for Trump, is that if he wins, you won't be treated as if you are in the back of the line (assuming that is even true in the first place). Is that it?
I find it interesting, because it reminds me of a common reason cited for why poor white folks supported slavery/Jim Crow in the South in the 19th/20th century. They didn't really benefit financially from it, so why? The reason given was that while slavery/Jim Crow existed, poor whites were guaranteed not to be at the bottom of the social order, so while slavery/Jim Crow was around, they could at least feel superior to someone else. "My life sucks, but at least I'm not like those n****s".
I’m a Christian Nationalist.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with theocracy. Or Trump (I'm actually pretty anti-Trump). Or a State Religion. Or anything else the leftist idiot brigade want to try and paint it as. I frankly don’t understand American’s who aren’t Christian Nationalists. Do they have something against the moral doctrines that define Christianity? Do they just hate their nation?
“Christian Nationalism,” as it’s used in American politics, is simply nothing more than “Good America.” The term is self-defining. Why would anyone have a problem with a Good America? Do they want a Bad America instead? Do they want a Good Not-America? Do they want a Bad Not-America?
And if so, who the heck is siding with them and why? Americans should ALL be Christian Nationalists.
I’m genuinely confused. Do you think that America can’t “be good” without religion?
I grew up southern Baptist before I learned about humanism and Kurt Vonnegut and quantum physics. Whenever someone asks me where I got all these crazy left-wing ideas I point them to the Gospels of Luke and the Sermon on the Mount. Lots of communism there.
Generally confused is your base state, you should be used to it by now.
You're a fucking tard. Go to Kansas and suck Jeff off.
Low inflation. No new foreign wars. Corp tax cut that brought back millions of jobs, etc.
Or have you been sleeping it off for the past 8 years?
Yeah, I’ve done well under Trump and Biden. I agree with you… we shouldn’t have boots on the ground everywhere in the world so I was pretty happy when Biden withdrew troops from Afghanistan. Yeah, yeah… Dear Leader flapped his mouth about withdrawing troops but as with most things it takes a Democrat to get things done.
That corp tax reduction basically increased the national debt and put a bunch of money in the pockets of CEOs. In case I wasn’t being clear… I’m not talking about rich White agribusiness tycoons, I’m talking about normal White people.
Here’s what I got from liberals and socialism during my life. It’s not an exhaustive list but highlights are: unemployment insurance, FMLA leave, student tuition assistance, a state job that provided me with a paycheck, mandated paternity leave, free tuition in graduate school, a government paycheck.
I want to know specific examples of what you guys got from Republicans. I’m a part time hobbyist who enjoys examining right-wing political movements so I should know, but what I’ve seen so far is only talking about immigrants at the border and abortion. Is there anything else? Please cite examples of how that has put money in your bank account.
..a state job that provided me with a payche….
And there it is.
You’d be amazed at the number of veterans on here that are tired of people living on the public teet.
More lies from Biden Guy. No one believes a word that you write, Mr "$400k from $1k in a forgotten bank account".
Wow. The two major political parties truly stop at nothing to get you to vote in polar fashion. What I am witnessing here looks rather amazing, if not an apocalyptic scenario for anyone whose self-importance purports to be given a chance to decide between good and evil by casting a vote for the usual, disappointing political system that thrives on convincing you that your other pocket will be safer even though its prospects won’t be pretty. If that is not symptomatic of control mechanism “gain,” then perhaps some people simply cannot see … and hopefully remain better off that way.
If eternal torment existed on earth, then two political parties would tighten their respective grips to leverage a squeeze of votes. “A squeeze of votes” sounds like what going for those denaturing in “insecure demographics” aims at being obtained.
So, the Republican ticket wants a way to interrupt your daily home life to exert its authoritarian breach (if you believe that). And the Democratic ticket wants would be a free pass for being the only major political party to recognize that a doctor may have a legitimate job in deciding embryonic development for clients privately.
But let’s stop for a moment to admire Trump’s confrontational method. He began that by uttering statements oft quoted by his detractors. That was when it was speech. Critics on this page suggest that he wants to project an authoritarian image and start creating enemies, having enlisted a veep running mate with attributed authoritarian tendencies.
The subtlety of speech versus image is not great. Indeed, speech may be like image, in that if there is no acting on a certain tendency, then that image remains only an impression.
And lastly, which president would the constitution be considered more likely to protect Americans from who would not otherwise be considered criminals?(?) What sorts of authoritarian mechanisms might be dreamed up by the Trump ticket to criminalize people who in a normal or fair world are not considered to be criminals to begin with?
If a Presidency was good, people would remember it with coherent statements and strong convictions. What does a good presidency really look like? Have we had one because of a witty diplomat, a shrewd commander-in-chief, an unbudging principled gentleman … ?
The way to appreciate American politics looks pretty dim, and there is no direction because literate persons are not very expressive whilst the ones I have seen have demonstrated unabashed gullibility by presenting lies lain in a casket of silk and flowers.
I am leaving libertarians out of the picture because that would bias my interest.
Do you actually read what you wrote? Nothing is remotely close to true or coherent.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. And I was reading at a college level in 4th grade and couldn't make heads or tails what this word salad meant.
yeah - I was struggling with trying to figure out the thesis.
Maybe try again, with fewer words and clearer idea of what you want to say?
When children become indoctrinated into the catholic church a.k.a. the western taliban, we must have some tolerance for their inability to shake off the childhood programming in adulthood. When a grown man chooses to voluntarily become part of that particularly evil church, we know we’re dealing with a mentally deficient individual. Nothing good will come of this.
Ah, a bigot, got it. You do realize that rhetoric is straight from the Klan, I'm not even being hyperbolic. That is literally what the Klan says about Catholics.
He is obviously not here to try to pursuade. Once I read "the catholic church a.k.a. the western taliban" I knew I couldnt take anything he had to say afterwards seriously.
Hint - if you want to pursuade someone to your position over a coffee somewhere maybe dont shit on the coffee table first.
Given the choice between President Biden who clearly has cognitive challenges and fluctuates in a manner that appear to be sun-downers and his back up of Kamala Harris the former prosecutor with a terrible record of doling out injustice in her ladder climbing and a narcissistic President Trump who has been singled out for attack from the moment he was the official nominee in 2016 and a 38 year old writer.
JD Vance is the best option of the four. He's not a perfect choice, but I fail to know who would be. He is not a terrible choice as you seem to be saying. Trump is not a libertarian and neither is JD Vance. However both are far closer aligned with the positions of libertarians than either Biden or Kamala Harris.
Unless of course, you are a far-left libertarian with a woke social agenda and likely very anti-libertarian notions related to economics. The Biden-Harris ticket is one of the most anti-libertarian tickets conceivable. The two embody the worst of the injustices against the very people the Democrat party pretends to be protecting.
Who would pick Pence over Vance other than this author? Was this the best she could dig up on him? The criticisms seemed to be all shallow nonsense. Out of Biden, Harris, Trump, Pence, and Vance... who really has the most compelling human story? This guy raised in poverty by his grandparents. He enlisted in the marines in an attempt to find a way out. Served in Iraq. Went to OSU after his enlistment. Did so well he was accepted into Yale Law School. Afterwards took jobs with the silicon valley tech gurus and jumped on Steve Case's initiative to help drive tech investment and training outside of the major tech hubs....particularly looking at starting up other techs hubs in faltering midwestern cities. He married a liberal democrat fellow ivy leaguer and the daughter of Indian immigrant parents. Vance should come off looking really good in debates with Kamala
Where "Marine" = cub reporter for a newsletter in Iraq who never wielded anything more dangerous than a pencil for a military that hasn't won a war in 75 years. Vance (then Hamel, or something similar) joined the military because he was a hillbilly with dim prospects in the real world.
Where “Marine” = cub reporter for a newsletter in Iraq who never wielded anything more dangerous than a pencil for a military that hasn’t won a war in 75 years.
Fuckin' LOL at the slack-jawed hicklib admitting his side can't win wars.