Trump VP Pick Senator JD Vance

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/trump-vp-pick-jd-vance/index.html

Trump VP Pick Senator JD Vance

 

Vance on Trump:

Vance said he went “back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical ******* like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler."

“Trump is cultural heroin.”

“I can’t stomach Trump.”

“Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man.”

“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy. I never liked him.”

 

Obama used sexist language with Clinton and ageist language with Romney. When queried by the press he excused it as the hyperbole of electioneering (something like that).

 

Whataboutism.

I drew no assessment. I just made a few assertions that are in the public record.

 

Nope. Quite relevant. It is typical political speech and not really all that new or surprising.

 

It comes to what VP choice brings to the table.
President Biden chose Harris as VP for a reason, even do Harris criticized Biden during the debates.

A premeditated criticism of Biden for comments he made about working in the Senate with former Mississippi Sen. James Eastland, a notorious segregationist.
Harris called Biden’s remarks “hurtful” and then turned to Biden’s record on the issue of forced busing in the 1970s, when Biden voted against the measure, which was intended to desegregate public schools.

 

Ugh. I didn’t vote for that chump when he ran in Ohio and I won’t be voting for him now. I really didn’t need ABC to cut in to General Hospital for a half hour to talk about it either. He was hand picked by trump to run for office in Ohio. His biggest selling point in his campaign ads was that he was picked by Trump. The MAGA machine is big in Ohio and it makes me sick. The freaks are flying their obscene flags all over. They’ve been up for several years now. They never take the vulgar eyesores down. Dear Lord please save us from this MAGA madness.

 

What obscene flags are they flying?

 

Then one could dismiss his current profession of undying love of Trump and all things MAGA with the exact same rationale.

 

"I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another." – J.D. Vance in 2022.

‘God help Ukraine’: How JD Vance’s VP nomination will cause chills in Kyiv (Holly Ellyat, CNBC, July 16, 2024)

This guy a heartbeat away from the presidency?

 

I just love how people declaring that Kamala is "not ready" are okey dokey with this guy.

 

This is just part of the bad mouth the potential women Democratic candidate for President that the Republicans perfected with Hillary Clinton.

 

That is unfortunate. The more I see the more I realize that both sides aren't that different from one another. And why would they be since they are made up of human beings.

A UK newspaper had an article where the woman writing it pointed out the hypocrisy. She said Democrats who laughed at the gullibility of QAnon conspiracy theory adherents have themselves taken to conspiracy theories regarding Trump's assassination attempt. On the other hand some Republicans have become "old aunties" complaining Biden invited people to violence with the use of the word target.

We did this during the various riots a few years ago. If our side is rioting and destroying things then good on them (we justify it or at least see it as unfortunate but understandable). If the other side is doing that then we have high ideals and principles. In short people are fluid in those principles.

 

Yes, that’s pretty much the gist of it. In various ways. BIG flags flying high right alongside American flags on the busiest streets where people have to travel to take their kids to elementary school, to church, grocery shopping, etc. Seriously folks. Vote however you want, but your flags just show how much of an ignorant jerk you are. Decent people don’t do that sort of thing.

 

Yes, they're basically the same. Except the many, many things they're very different.

People tend to dress their refusal to think up as wisdom. Not just about politics.

 

Many people are myopic. When you point out factual analysis indicative of their own shortcomings or hypocrisy they start stuttering and attempting to justify why their position is different, what they do is different. I remember discussions where people justified ANTIFA beating and attacking people (doing nothing to them) as justified because they are ANTI FASCIST As in, "Oh thank. God that person beating me and destroying my stuff is ANTIFA and not a pseudo fascist. Much more enjoyable beating".

 

When has it been documented that antifa (not an actual organization) committed violence against someone?

 

It's definitely going to be a headache for Ukrainian diplomats. Vance has outlined his position in the New York Times several months ago. Ukrainian leadership needs to come up with ways of addressing these concerns; https://archive.is/lwpxt/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/jd-vance-ukraine.html. Hopefully, the abandonment of the Ukrainian cause could be averted, although it will be a rocky road ahead.

Here's another perspective from the Atlantic: https://archive.is/uCOd3

"Cancel the Foreign-Policy Apocalypse A second Trump term probably wouldn’t change U.S. foreign policy all that much. By Eliot A. Cohen" (July 17, 2024)

Eliot Cohen is a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He is a professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University.

"...as hard as I find it to admit, it is possible that things may be less bad than they seem. Despite the warnings, a second Trump term may not be a riot of alliance-shattering isolationism, bellicose warmongering, or catastrophically stupid diplomacy. Begin with the Republican platform, which is not so much binding for Trump as it is a reflection of his priorities. It starts with a celebration of 20th-century victories over Nazism and Communism, but also features a robust effort to stop illegal immigration; a commitment to military strength; a promise to reinforce American alliances, particularly, but not exclusively, in the Indo-Pacific; support for Israel; and protection of U.S. infrastructure against “malign influences of Countries that stand against us around the World.”
Setting aside the random capitalization of nouns, an illiterate twitch now pervasive in official and personal documents of all kinds, it is boilerplate, and not especially scary boilerplate at that. It has an edge, but it is not an isolationist pronunciamento.

One of the deeper truths about American foreign policy, rejected every four years by Democrats and Republicans alike, is that it has much more continuity to it than rupture. Tariffs and supply-chain protection? The Biden administration has already gone down that path. Preoccupation with China and serious efforts to build up alliances and partnerships to contain and balance its growing power? Policies initiated in the first Trump administration have extended into the Biden years. A commitment to Israel and an interest in cementing relationships in the Persian Gulf? Same thing. A desire to disentangle ourselves from the Middle East and Afghanistan? That wish was shared by Obama, Trump I, and Biden.

The biggest potential outlier on this list of commitments is Europe, and specifically NATO. But the Biden administration’s willingness to arm Ukraine and allow it the full exercise of the military potential that we and others have too slowly and stintingly provided has been limited. Quietly, Biden-administration officials have made clear that they are providing enough to keep Ukraine afloat but not enough to let it win in any meaningful sense of the word, and that they prefer it that way. George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan would probably have behaved very differently, but they are not in office. Trump is less dissimilar from this administration than either he or Biden would prefer to have Americans believe.

Even Senator J. D. Vance—the Republican vice-presidential candidate, who has been particularly callous and obtuse about Ukraine—has conceded that it would not be in America’s interest to let Russia occupy the country, and that the U.S. should guarantee Ukraine’s independence. What his views of Russia will be if he begins getting intelligence briefings and contemplates the consequences of American abandonment of Kyiv are unknown—he is, as we have learned, extraordinarily flexible in his choice of unalterable principles and consequent moral and political judgments.

...although Lenin’s term useful idiots applies to some prominent right-wing commentators, there is no sign, yet, that a second Trump administration would simply dump Ukraine and exit NATO. What it would do, unquestionably, is put more pressure on European states to dramatically increase their defense spending. That is in no way a bad thing, and indeed, the prospect of Trump’s return seems to have had some good effects in that direction."