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

[superrific]

Firing people is trump's warped way of saying he was wrong.

Wut?

 

[altmin]

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?

mor elikely Vance will step aside "for personal reasons" and be rewarded with some kind of cushy ambassadorship or maybe a Saudi backed hedge fund like Jared.

 

[Callatoroy]

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.

 

[TarHeelGrad]

Has it occurred to this dim bulb that parents might not agree on who vote for? How does he propose to resolve a child’s vote when that happens?

What a dipshit.

What are you talking about? Of course, the man of the house would dictate where the extra votes go!

 

[Callatoroy]

Wut?

trump will never admit to being wrong so when he makes a hire he realizes he was wrong about he makes up some bs and fires them. In my many years of business I realized that firing someone is often times a failure of the manager, not the employee. A manager who has a chronic habit of firing people is almost always the problem.

 

[Wheels81]

 

[Callatoroy]

What are you talking about? Of course, the man of the house would dictate where the extra votes go!

The woman of the house is to busy cooking, cleaning, and making herself look nice for the man. No time to give thought to where the vote should go.

 

[Ddseddse]

Trump's VP picks are all about how much the pick has tried to attack him in the past. He has a pathological insecurity that forces him to "prove" how much of an alpha he is by taking someone who had the temerity to challenge him in the past and make them roll over and beg to to get he VP spot.

In not sure Haley has taken those sorts of shots at Trump, hard to see how he's gonna get his jollies off by putting her on the ticket in place of Vance.

 

[statboy2]

 

[Callatoroy]

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.

There are sites that try to rank them based on IQ but how credible they are is anyone's guess. I put kamala and trump together. trump has way more experience. I put Bill over obama. Not sure about hillary although she is very intelligent

 

[Wheels81]

There are sites that try to rank them based on IQ but how credible they are is anyone's guess. I put kamala and trump together. trump has way more experience. I put Bill over obama. Not sure about hillary although she is very intelligent

I’ve often read that historians have ranked John Quincy Adams as the President with the highest IQ. The difference between his IQ and Trump’s would be immense. I’m thinking at least 100 points.

 

[ChileG]

You do have to wonder what the vetting process looked like. Was Rudy in charge again?

The vetting process I think was…who is most likely to help me overturn a free and fair election?
Pence wouldn’t do it. Vance said he would if given the chance.

 

[superrific]

trump will never admit to being wrong so when he makes a hire he realizes he was wrong about he makes up some bs and fires them. In my many years of business I realized that firing someone is often times a failure of the manager, not the employee. A manager who has a chronic habit of firing people is almost always the problem.

He fires people if they won't do what he wants them to do. That's not really admitting he was wrong, any more than a mob boss is admitting he was wrong when he has an associate whacked. I mean, I suppose you could say he was admitting that the guy he thought would show Trump total fealty had other values, but I don't think that's what you were getting at.

Also, firings can be used as a form of intimidation.

 

[Callatoroy]

Pretty good

 

[Carolyn225]

I’ve often read that historians have ranked John Quincy Adams as the President with the highest IQ. The difference between his IQ and Trump’s would be immense. I’m thinking at least 100 points.

Yet JQA was a one term president who left embittered as his father had done so previously. I had to edit who was son and father because I had them flipped in my first response lol!

 

[heelslegup]

Vance is simply repeating what is in Project 2025 re the role of women. In The Matrix, humans were fed intraveneously and served as the batteries that powered the illusory world. In the Vance\/Project 2025 version, women are stay-at-home baby machines, and not professionals.
Dems already had the most potent issue in a woman's right to choose. This theory of men orchestrating what women do and taking women back to the 1940s vis a vis men offends almost all women, even very conservative ones.

 

[Rock]

If anyone spots this clip with JD Vance' head superimposed over a character in the old show Nip/Tuck let me know because I'll stop trying to edit it myself. Whoever gets it done first is going to have a viral banger...

 

[maxcrowder]

If anyone spots this clip with JD Vance' head superimposed over a character in the old show Nip/Tuck let me know because I'll stop trying to edit it myself. Whoever gets it done first is going to have a viral banger...

lmao, Nip/Tuck was so good.

 

[ChileG]

For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.

If I am following the logic correctly (not saying that I am), doesn’t this theory then assume that a person with two children won’t care as much about the future of the world as a person with 14 children?

 

[superrific]

If I am following the logic correctly (not saying that I am), doesn’t this theory then assume that a person with two children won’t care as much about the future of the world as a person with 14 children?

That's an excellent point. The assumption is binary, I guess. I haven't really thought about that, probably because I come at the whole idea from the corporate law perspective -- and there it's usually considered that a person with 100 shares of stock has less at stake than one with 100K shares.

That's why I favor the formulation of the idea in which kids get their own votes at a younger age, rather than their parents casting their votes for them. And while you might not think that's much of a difference, I think there are plenty of kids out there who won't just do what their parents tell them to do (especially since voting is confidential).