I agree with Egger's assertion that Vance's BS is of superior quality and odor; I don't agree with his crediting of Douthat. It's true he gave him plenty of room, and it's also true that Vance as VP is Douthat's wet dream.
There is one question each Republican should be asked when they try this BS and that is this:
Our country has established mechanisms for resolving election disputes, including recounts, hand counts, forensic audits and court cases. Trump availed himself of all of each of these means and each confirmed his loss.
So the question is, if you refuse to abide by these legal means, what are the non- legal (what Vance calls “political”) means you’re advocating that are outside the law? And what will that mean for our democracy if we move to a model where we refuse to abide by our laws when it comes to accepting election results?
And just to confirm, they’re just fine if Democrats pursue these same extra-judicial means when they lose, right?
"The fact that millions of Republicans believed there had been fraud was enough" even though they only believed it because many Republicans they trusted were telling them that.
The reason why C-Span has been a performative disaster in the US, while similar broadcasting networks abroad are not, is because in parliamentary systems there is actual debate, and they have questions for the leader (President, PM or chancellor). This is also why most PMs tend to be a lot younger than the two elderly characters running for PotUS this November (imagine Biden and Trump answering questions from the opposition in the House).
Even though Trump didn't actually make the trains run on time, of course Trump supporters care much less about the norms than they do about the trains running on time. Norms shmorms. What are they? Ya' can't even see 'em. And if they don't see it, it doesn't exist, unless, of course, it's Jesus Christ. Trains running on time is good for their personal convenience which is all they care about. And if other Americans' (who are not not real Americans) rights are curtailed in order for the trains to run on time and my personal convenience placated, who cares? I've got Donald Trump. He's gonna take care of me.
I have a strong feeling the book was shaped by some kind of handler that did their best to make what he had to say seem legitimate. As to the "interview" with Ross (who I also have a soft spot for, not because of his politics but because of his naiveté and seeming sincerity) please notice that in his column he also advocated the false electors thing. Not because he wanted Trump for president; his objection to Trump is that he's incompetent, not his attacks on democracy. Notice also that he has called JD Vance a close personal friend in some of his columns. This "interview" was obviously staged between the two of them to make Vance look good to "conservatives" who are as childlike as Ross.
I am really sorry I bought Hillbilly Elegy (audiobook version). Not only did it put money into the pocket of this turd, but it's also obvious he didn't absorb the lessons of his own best-seller. I wish there was some way to get my money back as a matter of principle.
I'm so glad that I didn't buy/read it. There were so many extensive and in depth reviews that by the time it came to buy I thought there was not much more to glean from it. In the end, everything you say. A bold face hypocrite with brains. As you say a "turd."
1) As I was reading the excerpt from the Vance interview, I couldn’t help but start yelling at my screen because of the totally misleading things that Vance said. Then I read AE’s synopsis and realized that I’m not the only one who sees the world the correct way.
I also found it interesting that Vance chose a relatively minor participant in The Big Lie to throw under the bus. Jenna Ellis basically worked for Giuliani. I wonder why he didn’t mention him. And what about Eastman and Powell?
“No, you can’t litigate these things judicially; you have to litigate them politically” – I’m not even sure what this means. Stealing an election would be a crime so the only place to adjudicate such a claim would be in the courts. What does a “political litigation” even look like? And of course he didn’t want the election litigated “judicially” because he knew that would mean that Trump would lose (the logic goes like this: (1) Trump tried the courts, (2) the courts didn’t agree with Trump, (3) ergo, using the courts was a mistake because he didn’t get what he wanted).
2) I haven’t read the entire interview so my further comments might be unfair. AE has made the point that there is a fine line between digging for responses and being harassing. But read AE’s analysis of Vance’s response and it suggests all kinds of legitimate questions:
a) What does “political litigation” mean?
b) He says that the claims were ‘litigated judicially”. But isn’t that the proper role of the courts when crimes have been alleged?
c) He brought up Jenna Ellis. But wasn’t Trump running what he calls “the clown show”?
d) What does it mean to “go to the states that had problems”? Every state (regardless of its “problem” status) had certified the election according to their state election laws. And every one of the “problem” states conducted many investigations (including hand recounts) often based on allegations from the GOP that showed that Biden really did win.
e) What does it mean that there needed to have been “an effort to provide alternative slates of electors and to force us to have that debate”. There was an effort to appoint alternate electors and there was a debate in Congress about them.
I’m guessing that I could come up with other questions if I thought more about it. But the important thing is to not let Vance (or anyone) get away with generalities or word-salad answers. You have to get them to explain what they mean. If Douthat did that, then he would have provided a “valuable service”. If he didn’t, then no.
3) “It was a mistake, Vance maintains, to spend all that time trying to prove fraud. The fact that millions of Republicans believed there had been fraud was enough.” – I think that pretty well sums it up nicely. That’s the sort of response that Trumplicants give when it is pointed out that no fraud was ever proven. No facts, just feelings.
That interview was stunning. My favorite part was hanging Carl Schmidt on liberals.
He's correct that parts of the academic far left became enamored with Schmidt at some point but Schmidt's entire catalog is a description of right wing revolution.
Schmidt despised liberalism. Which isn't all that odd. He was, after all, a literal NAZI.
The interview was a perfect example of a man brazenly obfuscating. Pure obscurantism. The center left is the true totalitarian danger because 6 Harvard professors cite Schmidt's writing on the nature of power.
Meanwhile the Trump movement is quite literally exactly what Schmidt was calling for.
The reason they all crave being VP is because Trump won’t be around long. He will finally OD on Big Macs or his dementia will cause being 25th amendment-ed.
I don't know. Though Trump values appearance and communication skills, I can't see him choosing someone who will clearly upstage him in both departments.
J D Vance IS a constitutional crisis.
I agree with Egger's assertion that Vance's BS is of superior quality and odor; I don't agree with his crediting of Douthat. It's true he gave him plenty of room, and it's also true that Vance as VP is Douthat's wet dream.
There is one question each Republican should be asked when they try this BS and that is this:
Our country has established mechanisms for resolving election disputes, including recounts, hand counts, forensic audits and court cases. Trump availed himself of all of each of these means and each confirmed his loss.
So the question is, if you refuse to abide by these legal means, what are the non- legal (what Vance calls “political”) means you’re advocating that are outside the law? And what will that mean for our democracy if we move to a model where we refuse to abide by our laws when it comes to accepting election results?
And just to confirm, they’re just fine if Democrats pursue these same extra-judicial means when they lose, right?
"The fact that millions of Republicans believed there had been fraud was enough" even though they only believed it because many Republicans they trusted were telling them that.
The reason why C-Span has been a performative disaster in the US, while similar broadcasting networks abroad are not, is because in parliamentary systems there is actual debate, and they have questions for the leader (President, PM or chancellor). This is also why most PMs tend to be a lot younger than the two elderly characters running for PotUS this November (imagine Biden and Trump answering questions from the opposition in the House).
Even though Trump didn't actually make the trains run on time, of course Trump supporters care much less about the norms than they do about the trains running on time. Norms shmorms. What are they? Ya' can't even see 'em. And if they don't see it, it doesn't exist, unless, of course, it's Jesus Christ. Trains running on time is good for their personal convenience which is all they care about. And if other Americans' (who are not not real Americans) rights are curtailed in order for the trains to run on time and my personal convenience placated, who cares? I've got Donald Trump. He's gonna take care of me.
I have a strong feeling the book was shaped by some kind of handler that did their best to make what he had to say seem legitimate. As to the "interview" with Ross (who I also have a soft spot for, not because of his politics but because of his naiveté and seeming sincerity) please notice that in his column he also advocated the false electors thing. Not because he wanted Trump for president; his objection to Trump is that he's incompetent, not his attacks on democracy. Notice also that he has called JD Vance a close personal friend in some of his columns. This "interview" was obviously staged between the two of them to make Vance look good to "conservatives" who are as childlike as Ross.
Biden just threw the election away. Headline from the Post, 46 minutes ago: "Biden to waive penalties for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens"
I give up. 😭
I am really sorry I bought Hillbilly Elegy (audiobook version). Not only did it put money into the pocket of this turd, but it's also obvious he didn't absorb the lessons of his own best-seller. I wish there was some way to get my money back as a matter of principle.
I'm so glad that I didn't buy/read it. There were so many extensive and in depth reviews that by the time it came to buy I thought there was not much more to glean from it. In the end, everything you say. A bold face hypocrite with brains. As you say a "turd."
A few comments...
1) As I was reading the excerpt from the Vance interview, I couldn’t help but start yelling at my screen because of the totally misleading things that Vance said. Then I read AE’s synopsis and realized that I’m not the only one who sees the world the correct way.
I also found it interesting that Vance chose a relatively minor participant in The Big Lie to throw under the bus. Jenna Ellis basically worked for Giuliani. I wonder why he didn’t mention him. And what about Eastman and Powell?
“No, you can’t litigate these things judicially; you have to litigate them politically” – I’m not even sure what this means. Stealing an election would be a crime so the only place to adjudicate such a claim would be in the courts. What does a “political litigation” even look like? And of course he didn’t want the election litigated “judicially” because he knew that would mean that Trump would lose (the logic goes like this: (1) Trump tried the courts, (2) the courts didn’t agree with Trump, (3) ergo, using the courts was a mistake because he didn’t get what he wanted).
2) I haven’t read the entire interview so my further comments might be unfair. AE has made the point that there is a fine line between digging for responses and being harassing. But read AE’s analysis of Vance’s response and it suggests all kinds of legitimate questions:
a) What does “political litigation” mean?
b) He says that the claims were ‘litigated judicially”. But isn’t that the proper role of the courts when crimes have been alleged?
c) He brought up Jenna Ellis. But wasn’t Trump running what he calls “the clown show”?
d) What does it mean to “go to the states that had problems”? Every state (regardless of its “problem” status) had certified the election according to their state election laws. And every one of the “problem” states conducted many investigations (including hand recounts) often based on allegations from the GOP that showed that Biden really did win.
e) What does it mean that there needed to have been “an effort to provide alternative slates of electors and to force us to have that debate”. There was an effort to appoint alternate electors and there was a debate in Congress about them.
I’m guessing that I could come up with other questions if I thought more about it. But the important thing is to not let Vance (or anyone) get away with generalities or word-salad answers. You have to get them to explain what they mean. If Douthat did that, then he would have provided a “valuable service”. If he didn’t, then no.
3) “It was a mistake, Vance maintains, to spend all that time trying to prove fraud. The fact that millions of Republicans believed there had been fraud was enough.” – I think that pretty well sums it up nicely. That’s the sort of response that Trumplicants give when it is pointed out that no fraud was ever proven. No facts, just feelings.
It's pretty genius sleight of hand. It's obvious that Vance could really be an asset to the country if he put some of that brain power to good use.
That interview was stunning. My favorite part was hanging Carl Schmidt on liberals.
He's correct that parts of the academic far left became enamored with Schmidt at some point but Schmidt's entire catalog is a description of right wing revolution.
Schmidt despised liberalism. Which isn't all that odd. He was, after all, a literal NAZI.
The interview was a perfect example of a man brazenly obfuscating. Pure obscurantism. The center left is the true totalitarian danger because 6 Harvard professors cite Schmidt's writing on the nature of power.
Meanwhile the Trump movement is quite literally exactly what Schmidt was calling for.
Douthat is a reason to ditch a NY Times subscription.
The reason they all crave being VP is because Trump won’t be around long. He will finally OD on Big Macs or his dementia will cause being 25th amendment-ed.
If he's anything like his dad, he will live into his 90s, without his marbles for the last decade or so.
I don't know. Though Trump values appearance and communication skills, I can't see him choosing someone who will clearly upstage him in both departments.
He’s on top. Just bought a pair of giant knee pads.
He’s on top. Just bought a pair of giant knee pads.