The JD Thread

[airportkid]

Saw we haven't got a JD thread yet so thought I'd fire one up.

The great mystery is why has JD made a complete turnaround, shifting from being a severe critic of Trump to a devoted supporter.  It's a move that cripples his credibility, and any sense he has any principles.

But it shouldn't be a mystery at all.  JD views his veepship as a back door to the presidency itself.  He recognizes his winning the presidency in a straightforward election is unlikely - he's the most disliked of all the personalities that would inhabit such a race.  But with the veepship a done deal, the presidency becomes a done deal when Trump keels over, and JD recognizes the actuarial odds of Trump surviving to 2029 are pretty small, and that there are strong odds that Trump's obviously deteriorating cognitive function would force early retirement.

What would be a surprise is JD keeping his earlier apparent principles intact with the immense potential this particular veepship promises.  How many of us, confronted with such a high opportunity, would keep flying our own banners of principle when doing so could shut that particular door?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What would be a surprise is JD keeping his earlier apparent principles intact [...]

Those principles are already in shards on the floor. All the king's horses and all the king's men ain't putting them back together.

[Minimalist]

Vance belongs in the senate about as much as my dog belongs in the cockpit of an airliner.

It is suggestive of how fucked up Ohio has gotten.

[pattylt]

If you’ve read his book, and I never saw the movie to compare it to, you’ll understand that JD learned and practiced early on using others as stepping stones. How badly was his mother a drug addict? Not sure but it helped him get into Yale. Yes, he’s also intelligent as that’s how he learned to use others. He later hooked up with Peter Thiel, a tech multimillionaire and Thiel became his mentor in various ways, from becoming a venture capitalist to funding his Ohio campaign.

The only area I haven’t figured out is his marriage to an Indian American…also a smart cookie who worked for a circuit court and SC judge. Perhaps JD liked her legal background? JD is every bit as transactional as Trump and yes, he picture Trump either dying in office or becoming so mentally compromised that he can enact the 25th. He’s slimier than a used car salesman and is deeply in the Project 2025 pocket. He wrote the forward to it, I think?

He’s worse than Trump because he’s just as evil but more silver tongued and smart.

[Alan V]

He’s worse than Trump because he’s just as evil but more silver tongued and smart.

This video explains a lot about what J.D. Vance believes and where he wants to go:



I forwarded it to someone I know with the caption "the belief that non-conservatives are evil."

Also, my wife suggested that if Trump became president again, Vance could invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him at some point in the future.  So Vance is another dictator in training.  His debate performance demonstrated how much he is willing to lie to gain power.

[Vorpal]

I actually prefer JD's personality, his focus on evidence, and smooth spinning -- over the other three. Too bad he is hollow and deceitful.

His willingness to claim Trump saved the ACA and peacefully exited office overshadows the other concessions that he made. He won the debate but lost his soul.

[epronovost]

I actually prefer JD's personality, his focus on evidence, and smooth spinning --  over the other three.  Too bad he is hollow and deceitful.  

His willingness to claim Trump saved the ACA and peacefully exited office overshadows the other concessions that he made. He won the debate but lost his soul.

I don't see JD's focus on evidence. On the contrary, he has been caught lying or defending obvious lies so often I doubt he cares much about any sort of evidence based reasoning. He disregard evidence so much I'm starting to wonder if he actually understand the issues he is talking about or if he is just lying to mask the fact the Republican plans on these issues are deeply unpopular or completely ineffective. He is a very good spin doctor though. He can certainly speak with great poise.

[Vorpal]

He frequently refers to evidence. Contrast this with general impressions that Trump references. However, JD, of late, does not do an exhaustive analysis of all available evidence.

[Minimalist]

He refers to evidence in the same way he refers to Haitian immigrants eating pets.

He's a fucking maga liar.  Just like his orange fuhrer.

[airportkid]

He can certainly speak with great poise.

Consider that this is what determines "winning" a debate.  Not honest argument.  Not adherence to reality.  Not logic, nor reason.  Just "poise".

It's a bit frightening the propaganda and its theatrics have become so entrenched in our discourse that they are the metrics we measure by.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Vance citing evidence? lol

He lied about energy production under Biden. He lied about Iranian assets being unfrozen. He lied when he said Trump defended ACA. He ignored all contrary evidence in making these lies.

Vance wouldn't know evidence if it bit him in the ass.

[mordant]

The great mystery is why has JD made a complete turnaround, shifting from being a severe critic of Trump to a devoted supporter.  It's a move that cripples his credibility, and any sense he has any principles.

It's common as fleas on a dog for politicians to change their positions, up to and including by 180 degrees, when it gets or keeps them in power. They all do it. It's just a question of how much they try to keep up appearances.

I think they all have their principles for sale, at varying prices.

[pattylt]

I’m still trying to figure out how people like him and Trump decided that running America like a corporation is something to be desired. What advantages and problem solving it would accomplish. Even the CEO is a dictator isn’t correct..the CEO answers to a board of directors who determine his worth and can vote him out of office. Just because a bunch of tech bros were able to build their wealth and status acting as dictators, that only worked until they go public. They have visions that their tech company was the ultimate in meritocracy and assume that translates into a government? Besides the fact that it isn’t actually true, it’s a fevered dream to think it could be applied to a varied society like we have. It’s also a fevered dream of theirs that anything anyone has should be bought or earned in some way…like food, water and housing? They don’t believe in any rights, just privliges deserved by them or those they chose to include.

And the Republican Party has bought into this…America as a corporation, driven by profit only. They are hardly what I would call human.

[Alan V]

I’m still trying to figure out how people like him and Trump decided that running America like a corporation is something to be desired.  What advantages and problem solving it would accomplish.  Even the CEO is a dictator isn’t correct..the CEO answers to a board of directors who determine his worth and can vote him out of office. Just because a bunch of tech bros were able to build their wealth and status acting as dictators, that only worked until they go public.  They have visions that their tech company was the ultimate in meritocracy and assume that translates into a government?  Besides the fact that it isn’t actually true, it’s a fevered dream to think it could be applied to a varied society like we have.  It’s also a fevered dream of theirs that anything anyone has should be bought or earned in some way…like food, water and housing?  They don’t believe in any rights, just privliges deserved by them or those they chose to include.

And the Republican Party has bought into this…America as a corporation, driven by profit only.  They are hardly what I would call human.

Republicans have long championed a laissez-faire free market over government regulations. This idea of a CEO-like benevolent dictator in the political arena seems to be a reductio ad absurdum of that position, but if so they chose the wrong person to represent it in Donald Trump. Trump's idea of over-turning regulations is to defy the law, pure and simple. "Only I can do it," really means only he has the money and the gas-lighting abilities to contest the law at every turn.

Some conservatives, like Vance, concluded that they have to grab power to have any chance of winning the future. Once you have become that self-righteous, you can rationalize all sorts of means to your ends. Once you define the opposition as "evil and anti-American," you can justify installing a dictator and lying to American voters to do so.

So to me it all boils down to Republicans rationalizing Trump's dishonesties for their own benefit, i.e. power over others. They are too stubbornly entrenched to adapt to changing demographics, so they chose this strategy instead. We will see if that dooms the whole party in the end.

[SYZ]

Some of Vance's views...

•  Vance amplified false rumors that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio,
were eating the pets of their neighbors, while putting the blame on
the Biden-Harris administration.

•  He advocates for stricter border policies and mass deportations. He's
also voiced support for restarting construction of the border wall.

•  He claims that Americans experiencing economic hardship can improve
their lives only by "their own willpower".

•  Vance has also praised authoritarian Hungarian prime minister
Viktor Orbán, telling Face the Nation in May that the US "could
learn from" some of his actions.

•  He's said he would vote no on the Respect for Marriage Act, which
provided federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages,
citing "religious liberty" concerns.

•  Vance has previously supported restrictions on abortion, signalling
in 2022 that he would back a nationwide restriction on abortion
beyond 15 weeks of pregnancy.

[Szuchow]

Some of Vance's views...

•  Vance amplified false rumors that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio,
were eating the pets of their neighbors, while putting the blame on
the Biden-Harris administration.

•  He advocates for stricter border policies and mass deportations. He's
also voiced support for restarting construction of the border wall.

•  He claims that Americans experiencing economic hardship can improve
their lives only by "their own willpower".

•  Vance has also praised authoritarian Hungarian prime minister
Viktor Orbán, telling Face the Nation in May that the US "could
learn from" some of his actions.

•  He's said he would vote no on the Respect for Marriage Act, which
provided federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages,
citing "religious liberty" concerns.

•  Vance has previously supported restrictions on abortion, signalling
in 2022 that he would back a nationwide restriction on abortion
beyond 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Truly a sterling example of human being. 

[mordant]

Republicans have long championed a laissez-faire free market over government regulations.  This idea of a CEO-like benevolent dictator in the political arena seems to be a reductio ad absurdum of that position, but if so they chose the wrong person to represent it in Donald Trump.

ISTR as far back as at least Reagan the notion being promoted that the government should be run like a business, like that's somehow automatically responsible and prudent. But the way businesses have been acting in recent years, and the antics of the Uber-rich running some of the largest corporations, I don't think that has the impact it once did. With Google search results deteriorating, and the many problems with all of Musk's business enterprises, especially X, and with Zuck busy buying up half the island of Kauai for his personal compound, with all the doomsday bunkers going in everywhere, with all the profiteering at the expense of paying a living wage, etc., anyone half paying attention knows that's no panacea, even if it ever WAS.

I think there's a growing realization, even if not fully articulated, that government isn't here to help us, and most particularly not if "run like a business".

[Minimalist]

And certainly not if run by greedy, flaming, assholes.

[Alan V]

I think there's a growing realization, even if not fully articulated, that government isn't here to help us, and most particularly not if "run like a business".

We the people are the government.  We choose our representatives.  You can argue whether this is the best system in several different ways.  First, "the people" are by no means always up to the job.  We are heavily propagandized for instance.  Second and therefore, people can be convinced to vote against our best interests.  So no, the government isn't necessarily here to help us, but it is our fault if we aren't doing our homework and paying attention.

Of course, these are the reasons conservatives use to support a wannabe dictator.  It's just that they use it against liberals, who they are convinced are evil and anti-American (i.e. non-religious and progressive).

However, I have been trying to sneak a few bits of relevant information to my wife's relatives who listen to Fox News, to try to help them to be well-informed enough to make good decisions come election day.  It isn't that hard to do, considering how blatant and egregious Trump's tactics are.  The question is whether it will be effective to change a few votes in Pennsylvania.

[SYZ]

...We the people are the government.  We choose our representatives.

Not necessarily.

Delegates can be selected through a primary "winner-take-all"
system, meaning the top candidate in a state’s primary gets all
of that state’s delegates—as in 48 of the states.

In voting districts with a substantial population of minorities,
they're severely under-represented in a winner-take-all system.
Even if their preferred candidate wins the popular vote nationally
but loses in their state, their votes will not count.

Even the majority may not have their way sometimes with a
winner-take-all system. A candidate can win the popular vote
nationally, but lose the electoral vote and fail to secure the
presidency even after getting the most votes.  

As for Bush in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.

Federal politics suck in the United States.    

[Alan V]

...We the people are the government.  We choose our representatives.

Not necessarily.

Delegates can be selected through a primary "winner-take-all"
system, meaning the top candidate in a state’s primary gets all
of that state’s delegates—as in 48 of the states.

In voting districts with a substantial population of minorities,
they're severely under-represented in a winner-take-all system.
Even if their preferred candidate wins the popular vote nationally
but loses in their state, their votes will not count.

Even the majority may not have their way sometimes with a
winner-take-all system. A candidate can win the popular vote
nationally, but lose the electoral vote and fail to secure the
presidency even after getting the most votes.  

As for Bush in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.

Federal politics suck in the United States.    

I know Americans love to blame their politicians and their political system, but I think the blame for not voting for better politicians or for a better system still falls on we Americans ourselves.  It's more of an educational rather than a political problem.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know Americans love to blame their politicians and their political system, but I think the blame for not voting for better politicians or for a better system still falls on we Americans ourselves.  It's more of an educational rather than a political problem.

The EC is a strong bulwark against the will of the people.

[Alan V]

I know Americans love to blame their politicians and their political system, but I think the blame for not voting for better politicians or for a better system still falls on we Americans ourselves.  It's more of an educational rather than a political problem.

The EC is a strong bulwark against the will of the people.

Yes indeed, but how many of those same people would support amending the Constitution to deal with it? Some people don't connect the dots. Others are lazy or uninvolved.

Inertia is a problem across multiple systems. Those who benefit from a bad system don't want to give up or compromise their benefits, and they fight the hardest.  So again, it goes back to human nature IMO.

In any case, I have been so bad at estimating what political decisions Americans will make that I now believe that I have considerably over-estimated the thinking abilities of people in general.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes indeed, but how many of those same people would support amending the Constitution to deal with it?  Some people don't connect the dots.  Others are lazy or uninvolved.

Inertia is a problem across multiple systems.  Those who benefit from a bad system don't want to give up or compromise their benefits, and they fight the hardest.  So again, it goes back to human nature IMO.

In any case, I have been so bad at estimating what political decisions Americans will make that I now believe that I have considerably over-estimated the thinking abilities of people in general.

More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) would instead prefer to see the winner of the presidential election be the person who wins the most votes nationally. Roughly a third (35%) favor retaining the Electoral College system, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 9,720 adults conducted Aug. 26-Sept. 2, 2024.

[...]

As has been the case for more than two decades, there are wide partisan differences in attitudes about the Electoral College:

*Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favor replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote system.

*Republicans and Republican leaners are more evenly divided: 53% favor keeping the Electoral College, while 46% would prefer to replace it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...l-college/

That doesn't mean it'll happen. 2/3 of both chambers of Congress, plus 2/3 of all states, are required to approve it, and that points up the real issue: getting our politicians to actually do what we want.

[airportkid]

... I have considerably over-estimated the thinking abilities of people in general ...

That's an all too common mistake.  Meanwhile the present GOP has found great success in successive failures to actually underestimate same.