JD Vance Catch-all | “we have to destroy the universities in this country”

[farce©]

suppose you are childless and 75 (hopefully you will be someday, if not yet). What on Earth would make you, say, advocate for a tax increase to pay for a decarbonizing energy grid? It's against your self-interest.

I am 70 with no kids. I would support a tax increase for things that benefit society as a whole and future generations because I am not an entitled asshole thinking only of myself. And I reject the notion that most older people are. People who lack empathy and compassion aren't bound by age.

ETA: we have seen over and over with MAGA that people do not necessarily vote in their own self-interests.

 

[Callatoroy]

Why is Kamala Harris a "low IQ black woman" in your mind? You don't graduate from law school, become a successful attorney, become a successful prosecutor, become Attorney General of the largest state in the nation, become Vice President, and become at worst 50/50 odds to become the next POTUS, by having a "low IQ." That you continue to believe this, much less say it, is quite an indictment on your character. I hope you'll reconsider your choice of words moving forward.

Not an indictment on my character. The black part is important because that is a demographic that trump was gaining inroads with. Now he decides that he is going to be "not nice" to a black woman who represents two demographics he can't afford to lose any votes from.

The low IQ part I believe to be completely accurate. I'm not saying she is double digits, but her IQ isn't on par with what any reasonable person would associate with a person holding the highest office in the country. Maybe I should have said average IQ. To be clear I'm not saying she is dumb as it relates to the ability to learn. However, I know personally at least 15 attorneys and went to school with at least 5 people I knew quite well that went to law school. A few have extremely high IQs but the majority are no more intelligent than college grads in other occupations. They were just more disciplined and had a better work ethic and drive. So graduating law school doesn't mean high IQ.

The rest of her resume is underwhelming with what you would expect from someone elected potus. It doesn't scream high IQ or even overachiever. She apparently had some help along the way. To what degree I don't know but she apparently made some useful connections. In her role of vp she has proven to be completely incompetent. Her interviews indicate someone with average IQ. I have read years and years of comments you guys have made about pub presidents, vp, congress people, judges, etc. I know exactly what you would say about kamala if she were a pub given what she has shown since her campaign and in her role as vp. I also know what would be said about her less than sterling college degrees. Howard and UCLSF aren't exactly Ivy League and I know how much stock you guys put into credentials because I read the critiques of pub candidates and their educational backgrounds. She would be attacked on par with what you say about the intelligence of trump, W, ACB, etc. You can say you wouldn't but you wouldn't be truthful. I can remember some of the comments that were made about her during the campaign and they weren't good. In a primary, none of the libs on this board would vote for her. She didn't win a single delegate and was hired SOLELY because she is a black female. That's it. Now you and some others have seemingly forgotten the comments about her that were made during the campaign. She didn't all of a sudden transform into this brilliant mind that makes people go wow she should be potus. She fell into it because of her color and gender. So, I stand by my characterization of her intellect and know if she wasn't Kamala (D) you and most on here would agree with me. I'm not into pretending someone is something they aren't because they are a potus nominee. You haven't heard me make excuses for trump and I have been critical of vance where warranted.

 

[mpaer]

Not an indictment on my character. The black part is important because that is a demographic that trump was gaining inroads with. Now he decides that he is going to be "not nice" to a black woman who represents two demographics he can't afford to lose any votes from.

The low IQ part I believe to be completely accurate. I'm not saying she is double digits, but her IQ isn't on par with what any reasonable person would associate with a person holding the highest office in the country. Maybe I should have said average IQ. To be clear I'm not saying she is dumb as it relates to the ability to learn. However, I know personally at least 15 attorneys and went to school with at least 5 people I knew quite well that went to law school. A few have extremely high IQs but the majority are no more intelligent than college grads in other occupations. They were just more disciplined and had a better work ethic and drive. So graduating law school doesn't mean high IQ.

The rest of her resume is underwhelming with what you would expect from someone elected potus. It doesn't scream high IQ or even overachiever. She apparently had some help along the way. To what degree I don't know but she apparently made some useful connections. In her role of vp she has proven to be completely incompetent. Her interviews indicate someone with average IQ. I have read years and years of comments you guys have made about pub presidents, vp, congress people, judges, etc. I know exactly what you would say about kamala if she were a pub given what she has shown since her campaign and in her role as vp. I also know what would be said about her less than sterling college degrees. Howard and UCLSF aren't exactly Ivy League and I know how much stock you guys put into credentials because I read the critiques of pub candidates and their educational backgrounds. She would be attacked on par with what you say about the intelligence of trump, W, ACB, etc. You can say you wouldn't but you wouldn't be truthful. I can remember some of the comments that were made about her during the campaign and they weren't good. In a primary, none of the libs on this board would vote for her. She didn't win a single delegate and was hired SOLELY because she is a black female. That's it. Now you and some others have seemingly forgotten the comments about her that were made during the campaign. She didn't all of a sudden transform into this brilliant mind that makes people go wow she should be potus. She fell into it because of her color and gender. So, I stand by my characterization of her intellect and know if she wasn't Kamala (D) you and most on here would agree with me. I'm not into pretending someone is something they aren't because they are a potus nominee. You haven't heard me make excuses for trump and I have been critical of vance where warranted.

How do you know her IQ??

 

[Callatoroy]

Also, who in the world has ever thought Trump is nice? Even the people who love him do so because they love that he’s an asshole.

Ok, nice might not be the best adjective but it gets the point across. He did say he was changed but apparently that wore off when the tramadol wore off.

 

[Callatoroy]

How do you know her IQ??

How would you know anyone's IQ? Unless you are the administrator of an IQ test the rest of the world has to make judgements based on what they witness and what they hear. I think there is a public consensus that she isn't the brightest bulb in the pack but that is just a guess.

 

[superrific]

I am 70 with no kids. I would support a tax increase for things that benefit society as a whole and future generations because I am not an entitled asshole thinking only of myself. And I reject the notion that most older people are. People who lack empathy and compassion aren't bound by age.

1. Good for you. I mean that earnestly. You're a good person.
2. But the issue is, I think, subtler than being an entitled asshole. There can be sub-conscious factors that affect your priorities. For instance, lots of things benefit society and future generations -- which do you choose? Do you really think that you wouldn't be biased in favor of things with more immediate payouts? A payout doesn't have to be selfish and entitled. Restoring Roe is a much easier task than solving climate change; it's entirely possible that you would be subconsciously biased toward the goal you might be able to see out. Maybe not in your case, but I think you can see the point here. Again, policy needs to deal with generalities.

3. One note: I've been talking of "childless" people in these posts as if they are abnormal, and those of with kids are normal and normative. I don't mean that at all. That's just an artefact of the discursive framework on this thread. My views and priorities also come with subconscious biases, and they are likely to be ones that favor my kids, and what is good for my kids isn't necessarily good for the country as a whole. I do think that it's more likely that my biases would align with the country's long-term interests because math and logic, and that's the case for the voting proposal being discussed -- but I don't want to give the impression that I see my own situation as the norm and and different experiences as marginal.

4. Finally, I might be completely off base about the "majority" of older people. I think people, on the whole, tend to vote their self-interest. Sometimes, that self-interest can be ideological, and thus other-directed. In such cases, age is less of a factor, as you note. For instance, abortion rights are unlikely to affect me and probably not my kids, all men. But they are important to me, and not just in some kind of distant observer way. I've developed, over the years, a strong emotional connection to many "liberal" causes and thus I think it's safe to say that I have an interest in seeing Roe restored, even if it's not a direct interest.

Still, from what I've seen of political science literature, I think naked self-interest is a more generally determinative factor, both of ideology and voting behavior. There's a reason the book was called, "What's the Matter With Kansas." The whole purpose of the book was to explore why some white constituencies in America tend to vote against their own interests, which definition suggests that interest-group voting is the norm.

 

[altmin]

Jamie Raskin called Vance a shillbilly today.

that's fire.

 

[superrific]

Not an indictment on my character. The black part is important because that is a demographic that trump was gaining inroads with. Now he decides that he is going to be "not nice" to a black woman who represents two demographics he can't afford to lose any votes from.

The low IQ part I believe to be completely accurate. I'm not saying she is double digits, but her IQ isn't on par with what any reasonable person would associate with a person holding the highest office in the country.

Did you vote for Trump, GWB or Reagan? None of those guys had an intelligence "on par with what any reasonable person would associate with a person holding the highest office in the land" given that you think that standard precludes Kamala. Nor, for that matter, did Biden. Here's my assessment of the intelligence of our recent presidential candidates. Short version: you've been spoiled.

Obama > Bill Clinton > HRC = Romney [big gap] Dukakis, GHWB, Dole and McCain I suppose [big gap] GWB [bigger gap] Trump. The gap between Obama and the Clintons is fairly small.

I haven't seen too much of Kamala but I suspect she's either in the HRC/Romney tier or slightly below. I guarantee you have voted for multiple presidential candidates with lower intelligence.

 

[CFordUNC]

Not an indictment on my character. The black part is important because that is a demographic that trump was gaining inroads with. Now he decides that he is going to be "not nice" to a black woman who represents two demographics he can't afford to lose any votes from.

The low IQ part I believe to be completely accurate. I'm not saying she is double digits, but her IQ isn't on par with what any reasonable person would associate with a person holding the highest office in the country. Maybe I should have said average IQ. To be clear I'm not saying she is dumb as it relates to the ability to learn. However, I know personally at least 15 attorneys and went to school with at least 5 people I knew quite well that went to law school. A few have extremely high IQs but the majority are no more intelligent than college grads in other occupations. They were just more disciplined and had a better work ethic and drive. So graduating law school doesn't mean high IQ.

The rest of her resume is underwhelming with what you would expect from someone elected potus. It doesn't scream high IQ or even overachiever. She apparently had some help along the way. To what degree I don't know but she apparently made some useful connections. In her role of vp she has proven to be completely incompetent. Her interviews indicate someone with average IQ. I have read years and years of comments you guys have made about pub presidents, vp, congress people, judges, etc. I know exactly what you would say about kamala if she were a pub given what she has shown since her campaign and in her role as vp. I also know what would be said about her less than sterling college degrees. Howard and UCLSF aren't exactly Ivy League and I know how much stock you guys put into credentials because I read the critiques of pub candidates and their educational backgrounds. She would be attacked on par with what you say about the intelligence of trump, W, ACB, etc. You can say you wouldn't but you wouldn't be truthful. I can remember some of the comments that were made about her during the campaign and they weren't good. In a primary, none of the libs on this board would vote for her. She didn't win a single delegate and was hired SOLELY because she is a black female. That's it. Now you and some others have seemingly forgotten the comments about her that were made during the campaign. She didn't all of a sudden transform into this brilliant mind that makes people go wow she should be potus. She fell into it because of her color and gender. So, I stand by my characterization of her intellect and know if she wasn't Kamala (D) you and most on here would agree with me. I'm not into pretending someone is something they aren't because they are a potus nominee. You haven't heard me make excuses for trump and I have been critical of vance where warranted.

Genuinely, sincerely appreciate the civility with which we are able to have this discussion. Obviously we do not agree on this, and that is okay, but I think it is worth pointing out how much I appreciate the thoughtfulness which you put into this response.

For the record, I've never disparaged the intelligence of people like George W. Bush or Amy Coney-Barrett. In fact, I think that Coney-Barrett is extremely intelligent, and I think that Bush was/is intelligent as well- I think that a lot of people mistakenly allowed his folksiness to color their perspective of his intelligence. This may surprise you, but I even think that JD Vance is extremely intelligent.

However, I do absolutely think that Donald Trump is legitimately a person of significantly below-average intelligence- and that is an opinion that has ben widely shared by the people who educated him and were educated alongside him at UPenn's Wharton. Trump has a widely-documented aversion to reading and a well-documented inability to grasp and process complex information; to me, it is very telltale that multiple members of his former cabinet- including, and especially people like his Chief of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that he is, and I quote, a "fucking moron."

I've never taken an IQ test myself, so I have no idea what mine is, but in general I consider myself to be of very, very average intelligence, and honestly in comparison to most of the rest of the regulars on this board, I'm probably below-average in intelligence- perhaps significantly so. So perhaps my perspective on intelligence isn't the best, but I imagine that Kamala Harris would run circles around me intellectually- and I think that she would run circles around the majority of people in the right wing media ecosystem who are calling her "low IQ", "DEI hire", etc.

Just my opinion, of course, and I know it's not one that you are likely to agree with. And that's ok!

 

[KishiKaisei]

Oh……Meghan, this is exactly who Trump’s GOP is.

 

[Callatoroy]

I am 70 with no kids. I would support a tax increase for things that benefit society as a whole and future generations because I am not an entitled asshole thinking only of myself. And I reject the notion that most older people are. People who lack empathy and compassion aren't bound by age.

ETA: we have seen over and over with MAGA that people do not necessarily vote in their own self-interests.

I'm getting to the point that I'm adamantly opposed to any tax increase without a law that dictates where that money will be spent. I would be all in on a tax increase on capital gains over $1,000,000, incomes over $2,000,000, and luxury items like jets, yachts, (or other things) etc. if there were a law that said all those taxes were going to pay down the debt, help support SS, improve infrastructure, etc. But to go into a general fund? Hell no. I'm sick of politicians spending money and acting as if they are stewards of the tax payers dollars.

 

[CFordUNC]

At what point does Trump have to replace Vance on the ticket?

 

[mpaer]

I'm getting to the point that I'm adamantly opposed to any tax increase without a law that dictates where that money will be spent. I would be all in on a tax increase on capital gains over $1,000,000, incomes over $2,000,000, and luxury items like jets, yachts, (or other things) etc. if there were a law that said all those taxes were going to pay down the debt, help support SS, improve infrastructure, etc. But to go into a general fund? Hell no. I'm sick of politicians spending money and acting as if they are stewards of the tax payers dollars.

Our State spends around 60 billion a year But we only "hear" about the 30 Billion we spend in "State Funds" . The other is Fed money
My point is that it is impossible for most folks to even know what their govt -say state-is even spending
There are States-Wis for ex-that when they announce the State Budget-they tell "the real story"

 

[nycfan]

At what point does Trump have to replace Vance on the ticket?

That would entail admitting he was wrong to choose Vance. Don't see that happening.

And not so sure he would get any lift from replacing Vance with anyone else because of the negative response to having to replace the guy. I dunno. Maybe Haley?

 

[CFordUNC]

That would entail admitting he was wrong to choose Vance. Don't see that happening.

And not so sure he would get any lift from replacing Vance with anyone else because of the negative response to having to replace the guy. I dunno. Maybe Haley?

Agreed, ultimately I don't see Trump admitting that he was wrong. But I know what would make me very nervous, and that's if he did what you just said- replace Vance with Haley. As it stands, I would be absolutely devastated if Vance is removed from the Trump ticket because I believe he is *that* much of an electoral albatross.

 

[Callatoroy]

Genuinely, sincerely appreciate the civility with which we are able to have this discussion. Obviously we do not agree on this, and that is okay, but I think it is worth pointing out how much I appreciate the thoughtfulness which you put into this response.

For the record, I've never disparaged the intelligence of people like George W. Bush or Amy Coney-Barrett. In fact, I think that Coney-Barrett is extremely intelligent, and I think that Bush was/is intelligent as well- I think that a lot of people mistakenly allowed his folksiness to color their perspective of his intelligence. This may surprise you, but I even think that JD Vance is extremely intelligent.

However, I do absolutely think that Donald Trump is legitimately a person of significantly below-average intelligence- and that is an opinion that has ben widely shared by the people who educated him and were educated alongside him at UPenn's Wharton. Trump has a widely-documented aversion to reading and a well-documented inability to grasp and process complex information; to me, it is very telltale that multiple members of his former cabinet- including, and especially people like his Chief of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that he is, and I quote, a "fucking moron."

I've never taken an IQ test myself, so I have no idea what mine is, but in general I consider myself to be of very, very average intelligence, and honestly in comparison to most of the rest of the regulars on this board, I'm probably below-average in intelligence- perhaps significantly so. So perhaps my perspective on intelligence isn't the best, but I imagine that Kamala Harris would run circles around me intellectually- and I think that she would run circles around the majority of people in the right wing media ecosystem who are calling her "low IQ", "DEI hire", etc.

Just my opinion, of course, and I know it's not one that you are likely to agree with. And that's ok!

I owe you an apology. When I said "you" I meant the board libs / (D) voters. I should do a better job in distinguishing that. I tend to talk here in generalities and that can create misunderstandings so I will do better.

I completely agree with you about trump. I don't see him as having a high IQ. I do see him having some wisdom gained from experience in his business life and from 4 years as potus that gives him an advantage over kamala. I think he is way more experienced in managing the administrative duties of the job. That doesn't mean he isn't a wretched human being. Not relevant to this discussion but it just popped into my head. Of all his personal shortcomings and character flaws, the two that piss me off the most are his narcissism and immature pettiness. I don't know why but its like nails on a chalk board to me.

 

[CFordUNC]

I owe you an apology. When I said "you" I meant the board libs / (D) voters. I should do a better job in distinguishing that. I tend to talk here in generalities and that can create misunderstandings so I will do better.

I completely agree with you about trump. I don't see him as having a high IQ. I do see him having some wisdom gained from experience in his business life and from 4 years as potus that gives him an advantage over kamala. I think he is way more experienced in managing the administrative duties of the job. That doesn't mean he isn't a wretched human being. Not relevant to this discussion but it just popped into my head. Of all his personal shortcomings and character flaws, the two that piss me off the most are his narcissism and immature pettiness. I don't know why but its like nails on a chalk board to me.

Nah, dude, absolutely no apology necessary! All good, all the time. I hear exactly where you're coming from.

 

[KishiKaisei]

Jamie Raskin called Vance a shillbilly today.

that's fire.

 

[Callatoroy]

Our State spends around 60 billion a year But we only "hear" about the 30 Billion we spend in "State Funds" . The other is Fed money
My point is that it is impossible for most folks to even know what their govt -say state-is even spending
There are States-Wis for ex-that when they announce the State Budget-they tell "the real story"

Agree and it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Callatoroy]

That would entail admitting he was wrong to choose Vance. Don't see that happening.

And not so sure he would get any lift from replacing Vance with anyone else because of the negative response to having to replace the guy. I dunno. Maybe Haley?

I don't see trump EVER admitting he was wrong. I could see him and others putting pressure on vance to "voluntarily" back out. If he did and chose Haley that loud noise you would hear would be coming from my house. Trump wasn't afraid to fire people. It was usually because they pissed him off or didn't bend the knee but he would replace someone at the drop of a hat. Not saying that is always a good thing but sometimes it is. Firing people is trump's warped way of saying he was wrong.