Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

JD Vance Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 964
  • Views: 32K
  • Politics 
Paine said:
America’s decline started long before Trump.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what this decline is. Would you explain? Yes, there are remnants of old hatreds that threaten what we have achieved but, in fact, we're healthier, better fed, better off financially, more peaceful at home and abroad and generally better off by most metrics.

It's true that the Republican Party, who long touted themselves as the party of integrity, personal responsibility and patriotism has forsaken every one of those. At least, I can't think of a single leader in that party who encapsulates any of those virtues. They, like many of their supporters, put power and privilege over party.

That's neither America or democracy.
 
Paine said:
America’s decline started long before Trump.
Click to expand...
This should definitely be a separate thread and I suggest we defer it until after the election, but I could not disagree more. Or, to be more precise, we at least have to be much more specific what is meant by "decline." We have some profound challenges, no doubt. But I can say with no hesitation I'd rather be an American right now than at any other time in the history of the country. And I'm a straight, white, college-educated male, so my relative privilege would have been significantly greater in prior eras.
 
Yeah don’t want to derail the thread. I’m talking about the decline of American global hegemony militarily and economically.

I think that started in the 1970s.
 
lawtig02 said:
This is not at all to excuse the press, who I agree has just capitulated on this without a fight, but I think this whole issue has been profoundly impacted by SCOTUS's lurch to the right. There's just no possible chance this SCOTUS would come anywhere close to finding the obvious tax-law violations are actionable under the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
I have seen a couple Catholic churches in Charlotte with big signs out front that say “Vote Pro-Life.” While they don’t directly endorse any particular candidate, they indirectly endorse certain candidates and seem to run afoul of 501(c)(3).
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that has nothing to do with being complacent with our industrial technology while Germany and Japan are forced into rebuilding theirs with a much more efficient one . Nor does losing sole proprietorship of nuclear power, chasing ghosts in Iran, Indochina and countless other places for the former colonial powers and blundering around in South and Central America help in maintaining a somewhat fictional military hegemony.
 
finesse said:
I'm sure that has nothing to do with being complacent with our industrial technology while Germany and Japan are forced into rebuilding theirs with a much more efficient one . Nor does losing sole proprietorship of nuclear power, chasing ghosts in Iran, Indochina and countless other places for the former colonial powers and blundering around in South and Central America help in maintaining a somewhat fictional military hegemony.
Click to expand...
100%. That’s what I’m saying. Those were choices made by America. We weren’t forced into free market dogma while Japan and Germany were doing industrial planning.
 
Oh. That, like so many other thing started when Truman and Eisenhower, finally recognized that if blacks could fight and die for the country, then the government needed to swing behind the Civil Rights movement. The Ivy Leaguers who ran the CIA still maintained a huge influence on foreign policy but hat's when everything stopped being all about the white power elite. That movement grew to include women and gays and, despite your earlier contention, does not represent a decline but a much needed refocus.

I would gladly continue this discussion but am quite willing to take it elsewhere.
 
Paine said:
100%. That’s what I’m saying. Those were choices made by America. We weren’t forced into free market dogma while Japan and Germany were doing industrial planning.
Click to expand...
I really do want to discuss this, but my views on it will be impacted by what happens on 11/5, and it definitely doesn't have anything to do with this thread. So how about we all put a marker on our calendars to start a new thread on this topic around the middle of November. I think it would be a really interesting discussion.
 
Icky Mettle said:
If Trump wins, perhaps. But if Trump loses, I don’t see it. When is the last time, if ever, a VP candidate on a losing ticket has been a real threat politically?

In my lifetime, there was Dole, Mondale, Bentsen, Quayle, Lieberman, Edwards, Palin, Ryan, Kaine, and Pence. Of those, only two were able to go on to become their party’s nominee for President, but each time they were essentially sacrificial lambs, nominated to run when everyone knew that had no real chance. And Vance will have that Trump taint on him.
Click to expand...
I did not know that Dole was Ford's running mate in '76. Learn something new every day.
 
Paine said:
Yeah don’t want to derail the thread. I’m talking about the decline of American global hegemony militarily and economically.

I think that started in the 1970s.
Click to expand...
No offense but that’s about as ahistorical take as I’ve ever heard on this forum. Americas global “hegemony” such as it ever was peaked in the 90s with the end of the Cold War.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
No offense but that’s about as ahistorical take as I’ve ever heard on this forum. Americas global “hegemony” such as it ever was peaked in the 90s with the end of the Cold War.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about when it ended formally or informally. I’m talking about when the decline began, which I think is up for debate. I think what’s in contention in the posts directed at me so far is disagreements about what the decline is. Would be more than happy to discuss my thoughts via DM or another thread.

I am a bit offended, because I have a history degree from UNC and don’t think my point is even in the top 10 of ahistorical points on this forum. Just venture over to the Israel-Palestine thread.
 
Last edited:
finesse said:
Oh. That, like so many other thing started when Truman and Eisenhower, finally recognized that if blacks could fight and die for the country, then the government needed to swing behind the Civil Rights movement. The Ivy Leaguers who ran the CIA still maintained a huge influence on foreign policy but hat's when everything stopped being all about the white power elite. That movement grew to include women and gays and, despite your earlier contention, does not represent a decline but a much needed refocus.

I would gladly continue this discussion but am quite willing to take it elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I think we’re in agreement, so I would be eager to take the discussion elsewhere as well.
 
Paine said:
I’m not talking about when it ended formally or informally. I’m talking about when the decline began, which I think is up for debate.
Click to expand...
I’m talking about when it peaked, after which comes decline. Everything’s up for debate I suppose but you’re arguing against facts.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
I’m talking about when it peaked, after which comes decline. Everything’s up for debate I suppose but you’re arguing against facts.
Click to expand...
Again, more than happy to discuss in the DMs what I mean by decline. Doesn’t help anyone to assume you know exactly what point I’m trying to make.
 
Paine said:
Again, more than happy to discuss in the DMs what I mean by decline. Doesn’t help anyone to assume you know exactly what point I’m trying to make.
Click to expand...
I suppose that’s a credit to how well you’ve articulated your point. DM away if you feel it. Apologies to all for the derail.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I have seen a couple Catholic churches in Charlotte with big signs out front that say “Vote Pro-Life.” While they don’t directly endorse any particular candidate, they indirectly endorse certain candidates and seem to run afoul of 501(c)(3).
Click to expand...
Nonprofits, including 501(c)(3) NPOs, are allowed to take stances on political issues, provided those issues are within the purview of their mission, as long as they don't endorse specific candidates.

There is no violation of election law nor nonprofit law by a church encouraging folks to vote in a manner consistent with the ideological leanings of said church as long as they don't endorse specific candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top