J.D. Vance - Character and Policies

[reddogblitz]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well then (and I say this in the nicest possible way), you are a Couch F**ker.

 

Stereotype much? Stereotyping is lazy thinking.

 

You also didn't answer my question. Is being very gay a bad thing?

Edited July 26 by reddogblitz

[Roundybout]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:

You also didn't answer my question. Is being very gay a bad thing?

Of course not.

Just an observation (someone had called them incels), not a judgement.

[4th&long]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, 4th&long said:

 

That is one voluptuous couch.

[4th&long]

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Vance:

"A lot of people are unable to have kids for very complicated and important reasons…there are people of course for biological reasons, medical reasons that can't have children. The target of these remarks is not them.”

 

[Roundybout]

6 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Vance:

"A lot of people are unable to have kids for very complicated and important reasons…there are people of course for biological reasons, medical reasons that can't have children. The target of these remarks is not them.”

 

Nice motte and bailey argument from Senator Couchbanger over here 

[Roundybout]

 

 

Great f-ing pick, Donny!

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

Right and Left Are Wrong about J. D. Vance

By NEAL B. FREEMAN

 

 

Vance is no Adolf Hitler. He’s more of a young Bill Clinton.

 

You have probably read, more than a few times, this consensus Beltway story: Trump is seeking to entrench MAGA as the governing force in his new Republican Party, and he picked J. D. Vance to carry forward that legacy.

 

Put aside for a moment the surface problems. There is nothing in the public record to suggest that Trump does long-range planning. His time horizon seems to stretch out to, oh, early September. Nor does Trump do political philosophy. He governs spontaneously, proudly unrestrained by the dead hands of practice and precedent.

 

The fundamental problem with the story concerns J. D. Vance. He cannot be relied upon to carry forward the MAGA legacy because he is not yet wedded to it himself.

 

The story of his adult life begins at Yale Law School. He’s older than many of his classmates, but he’s already well behind them, both academically and socially. He has spent the previous seven years in the U.S. Marines and, for college, at Ohio State. That is invaluable experience, all of it, but less than comprehensive preparation for a high-pressure academic face-off.

 

Vance is inspired by a fellow student, Usha Chilukuri, who is better prepared for the challenge they face. She has spent the previous six years excelling, first at Yale College, where she earned a bachelor’s degree, and then at Cambridge University, where she earned a graduate degree. (Usha Chilikuri is a caricature of the high-performing, second-generation Indian American. She later becomes an editor of the Yale Law Journal, then clerks at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and at the U.S. Supreme Court before becoming a litigator with the top-tier law firm, Munger, Tolles and Olson, founded by Warren Buffett’s business partner, Charles Munger. All this while having three children in five years with her new husband, J. D. Vance.)

 

By all accounts, Usha provided critical help to Vance as he tried to navigate the murky waters of that most elite of Ivy League institutions. When they became a couple, and then married, it was clear to their friends that Usha would be the brains in the family.

 

Does this story remind you, mutatis mutandis, of those earlier Yale Law School classmates, Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton? It should. Hillary was raised in an affluent Chicago suburb and graduated from one of the Seven Sisters, Wellesley College. Bill was the boy from Hope, Ark., and it showed. Both academically and socially, Hillary wore the pants in the new family then forming.

 

But there was something else, beyond their superstar wives, that Bill Clinton and J. D. Vance had in common. They were both sons of an alcoholic parent.

 

What that meant was that, after years of dark and dangerous practice, they had learned how to read a room. They could sense tension building — and knew how to defuse it. They could anticipate assaults, both physical and rhetorical — and be quick to deflect them. They became good on their feet, glib and likeable. What they gave away in terms of academic achievement, they more than made up for in street smarts. They both had rizz, if you like. Some people just called them bullsh** artists.

 

{snip}

 

J. D. Vance, along with the rest of us, now faces the question the answer to which will define our generation’s legacy to the next. It is neither ideological nor cultural. It is a question of temperament and outlook. It is this: When you look at the American economy, which is the envy of the world, what do you see? Do you see success? Or do you see greed?

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/right-and-left-are-wrong-about-j-d-vance/

Well, when you couch it in those terms, it could be enough to get him over the hump.

[ChiGoose]

New Vance weirdness just dropped:

 

 

Did they do *any* vetting with this guy?

[Motorin']

10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Vance:

"A lot of people are unable to have kids for very complicated and important reasons…there are people of course for biological reasons, medical reasons that can't have children. The target of these remarks is not them.”

 

 

The meme informed left-wing base doesn't care about what's actually true.

 

They're still running with "Vance has sex with couches" based on a total lie from a guy who calls himself @rickrudescalves on Twitter. For them, because it was a funny meme that denigrates their opponents it has power. And having power is all that matters. 

 

The funny thing about that is if a left wing politician was caught having sex with a couch on a zoom call, they'd still vote for him...

 

Realistically, the fact that they've been cosplaying as Palestinians and calling for intifada all spring and summer tells you everything you need to know about how easy they are to mentally manipulate.  

[BillsFanNC]

Since the Kamala successes thread is filled with leftists not counting her successes and instead hoaxing about the orange dude and Project 2025...

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Right and Left Are Wrong about J. D. Vance

By NEAL B. FREEMAN

 

 

Vance is no Adolf Hitler. He’s more of a young Bill Clinton.

 

You have probably read, more than a few times, this consensus Beltway story: Trump is seeking to entrench MAGA as the governing force in his new Republican Party, and he picked J. D. Vance to carry forward that legacy.

 

Put aside for a moment the surface problems. There is nothing in the public record to suggest that Trump does long-range planning. His time horizon seems to stretch out to, oh, early September. Nor does Trump do political philosophy. He governs spontaneously, proudly unrestrained by the dead hands of practice and precedent.

 

The fundamental problem with the story concerns J. D. Vance. He cannot be relied upon to carry forward the MAGA legacy because he is not yet wedded to it himself.

 

The story of his adult life begins at Yale Law School. He’s older than many of his classmates, but he’s already well behind them, both academically and socially. He has spent the previous seven years in the U.S. Marines and, for college, at Ohio State. That is invaluable experience, all of it, but less than comprehensive preparation for a high-pressure academic face-off.

 

Vance is inspired by a fellow student, Usha Chilukuri, who is better prepared for the challenge they face. She has spent the previous six years excelling, first at Yale College, where she earned a bachelor’s degree, and then at Cambridge University, where she earned a graduate degree. (Usha Chilikuri is a caricature of the high-performing, second-generation Indian American. She later becomes an editor of the Yale Law Journal, then clerks at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and at the U.S. Supreme Court before becoming a litigator with the top-tier law firm, Munger, Tolles and Olson, founded by Warren Buffett’s business partner, Charles Munger. All this while having three children in five years with her new husband, J. D. Vance.)

 

By all accounts, Usha provided critical help to Vance as he tried to navigate the murky waters of that most elite of Ivy League institutions. When they became a couple, and then married, it was clear to their friends that Usha would be the brains in the family.

 

Does this story remind you, mutatis mutandis, of those earlier Yale Law School classmates, Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton? It should. Hillary was raised in an affluent Chicago suburb and graduated from one of the Seven Sisters, Wellesley College. Bill was the boy from Hope, Ark., and it showed. Both academically and socially, Hillary wore the pants in the new family then forming.

 

But there was something else, beyond their superstar wives, that Bill Clinton and J. D. Vance had in common. They were both sons of an alcoholic parent.

 

What that meant was that, after years of dark and dangerous practice, they had learned how to read a room. They could sense tension building — and knew how to defuse it. They could anticipate assaults, both physical and rhetorical — and be quick to deflect them. They became good on their feet, glib and likeable. What they gave away in terms of academic achievement, they more than made up for in street smarts. They both had rizz, if you like. Some people just called them bullsh** artists.

 

{snip}

 

J. D. Vance, along with the rest of us, now faces the question the answer to which will define our generation’s legacy to the next. It is neither ideological nor cultural. It is a question of temperament and outlook. It is this: When you look at the American economy, which is the envy of the world, what do you see? Do you see success? Or do you see greed?

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/right-and-left-are-wrong-about-j-d-vance/

In all seriousness (no edgy warning needed) - this National Review article makes a good point. Vance is a Bill Clinton type. 

Outside of policy (and his born-again Trumpism), what he'll be criticized for is that he comes off as more Hillary than Bill: stiff and awkward rather than slick and personable.

[Gene Frenkle]

Homosectional JD Vance?

[Big Blitz]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

In all seriousness (no edgy warning needed) - this National Review article makes a good point. Vance is a Bill Clinton type. 

Outside of policy (and his born-again Trumpism), what he'll be criticized for is that he comes off as more Hillary than Bill: stiff and awkward rather than slick and personable.

 

Haven't read the book - saw the movie.  
 

There is a scene is watching Gore on TV and another he wants to watch the President (Clinton).

 

Is there anymore context to this in the book?

 

 

Impression was he is in line with old blue dog Ds - who are now gone.  

Edited July 26 by Big Blitz

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Haven't read the book - saw the movie.  
 

There is a scene is watching Gore on TV and another he wants to watch the President (Clinton).

 

Is there anymore context to this in the book?

I can't remember. I read it when it was kind of a sensation, back when all the pundits thought it offered some insight into the Trump phenomenon. (And it did)

As I've said, it is well-written, thoughtful, and a good read.

I am hoping that the "real" JD Vance - the guy who might have some real policy proposals to deal with the socioeconomic collapse of the part of America he still loves - will reemerge at some point. Because his attempts at being a mini-Trump land with a thud, much like Ron DeSantis's did.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

I didn't really get this pick for Trump from just a purely strategic standpoint...it was obviously just Peter Thiel's money. If it was the best fit to balance his ticket it would probably be...and still could be Youngkin. 3+ months doesn't seem at all like too far out to make a change anymore. 

[Big Blitz]

2 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

I didn't really get this pick for Trump from just a purely strategic standpoint...it was obviously just Peter Thiel's money. If it was the best fit to balance his ticket it would probably be...and still could be Youngkin. 3+ months doesn't seem at all like too far out to make a change anymore. 

 

Not buying this or this sudden and deliberate simultaneous “calls” in corporate media that Vance was a bad pick.  
 

They’re setting up Coupmala’s pick to be “outstanding” in comparison. 
 

 

Fake.  Fake.  Fake.  No one votes for VP anyway.  And Vance is a fine choice bringing what Trump wants is a new YOUNGER version of his policies.  He’s the first millennial in the ticket for POTUS.  

 

Rust belt and youth and of course checking MAGA boxes.  

[Roundybout]

18 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Homosectional JD Vance?

He doesn’t like pull out couches that’s for sure