I know he’s a big supporter of bringing back the expanded child tax credit which is also probably related…
Pretty hard to be successful in the US as a politician if you are known to be an atheist. I don’t know if JD is sincere in his current beliefs but just saying there is some political advantage in being a MAGA Christian. And JD has changed his views on Trump that have helped his political career so he is an opportunist
2 Likes
More about Vance, from one of them Mexicans he likes to rail about:
If you need a paste, just ask!
Kinda like he changes his underwear?
How do GOP conventions compare to Democrat ones?
THIS GOP convention is just a love fest for Trump. Don’t expect the same adulation for poor Joe at the Democrat one!
Regardless, the GOP ones have more unabashed patriotism (although one could argue as to what true patriotism is these days!)
I expect the extracurricular activities to be similar.
That’s what I was getting at.
A couple years old, still relevant.
Last September, Vance outlined this message of revolutionary conservatism on a podcast hosted by a rightwing activist and self-styled masculinity champion who once declared, “Feminists need rape.” During the interview, Vance called for returning Trump to the White House in 2024 so Trump could fire every top and mid-level federal government employee to “deconstruct the administrative state,” and he noted that Trump should even defy the law, if necessary, to mount such a purge.
The show’s host was Jack Murphy, who runs a secretive men’s organization that claims all major American institutions—universities, the media, the government, unions, professional organizations, nonprofits, and corporations—have been “infiltrated, corrupted, demoralized” and aim to “control you forever.” For years, Murphy has railed against feminism, wokeness, and other conservative bête noires. In a blog post written in 2015 and subsequently deleted, he asserted, “Feminists need rape… It is our duty as men to save feminists from themselves. Therefore, I am offering rape to feminists as an olive branch.”
Didn’t read, but how is it relevant what someone who is not Vance said?
I find it relevant if somebody agrees to a friendly interview on the show of a person who publicly threatens to rape people.
You can know people by the company they keep.
1 Like
list the republicans who haven’t?
Would Vance have known that? It was not a recent comment at the time.
I don’t want to say that Biden should read the writing on the wall and drop out, but
- If he’s going to, time is running out for that to happen before it has real ballot implications
- If he wanted to drop the biggest possible turd in the RNC fishbowl, he’d announce at about 6:45pm Central that he was standing down and then the Democrats could watch Trump scramble to talk through a new speech thrown together in haste that he hasn’t seen and either has to read off the teleprompter or causes him to start riffing [and run the lowest of the lowlights in ads throughout the fall]
- It would immediately ramp up attention for the DNC, which the Democrats really need after the show of [by and large] unity the Republicans have put on so far.
5 Likes
I like this idea. Probably not gonna happen, but I like it!
3 Likes
Biden dropping out will probably be our October Surprise
Biden will probably stubbornly hold firm until a week before the election when he has a stroke and then it’ll be a landslide.
I don’t envy the DNC. I think Biden at the top of the ticket is both very volatile, and the best chance at winning. Swapping him out would be a move towards lower variance, almost certainly. The tradeoff in my view, as a lower expected value as well.
Just watched JD Vance RNC speech. I don’t agree with his isolationist stances. But I can say that Kamal doesn’t want any of that on a debate stage. I remember her ability level from the 2020 primaries. It wouldn’t be as bad as Biden’s performance, but I’d put her at a 2-1 against or so.
1 Like
I think we’re at Life of Brian about to be stoned to death levels. How could switching make us any worse??
Close your eyes and picture an election in any random year. The incumbent beat the challenger (who was himself an incumbent) four years ago. The incumbent had, all things considered, a very good mid term, as well. The incumbent was re-nominated by very large margins. Unemployment is 4%.
Seems like the safest bet is going with that person. Does age + a few bad TV appearances change the equation that much that it’s worth saying, “Hey voters, I know you voted for this guy four years ago, and I know some of you renominated him, and I know things are going reasonably well, but we’re gonna run this person you didn’t vote for instead.”?
I don’t know. Maybe. But I’m nowhere near certain of this.