Postliberalism and Vance?
-
I dont think articles of that kind of intellectual depth could have been written about any of the other aspirants for national political office.
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
I dont think articles of that kind of intellectual depth could have been written about any of the other aspirants for national political office.
You're right.
And I think the article is close to what the GOP is becoming. It's not something we haven't seen before.
It's actually pretty close to a religious, socially conservative, pre-Wilsonian Democrat. Or at least that's my opinion.
-
I dont think articles of that kind of intellectual depth could have been written about any of the other aspirants for national political office.
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
I dont think articles of that kind of intellectual depth could have been written about any of the other aspirants for national political office.
Yes. I think Trump's pick of Vance was ideological more than political.
-
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
I dont think articles of that kind of intellectual depth could have been written about any of the other aspirants for national political office.
Yes. I think Trump's pick of Vance was ideological more than political.
@Horace said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
I dont think articles of that kind of intellectual depth could have been written about any of the other aspirants for national political office.
Yes. I think Trump's pick of Vance was ideological more than political.
Legacy pick.
-
The article asks "is JD Vance trying to rethink the Republican Party."
The answer is it doesn't matter. The Republican Party is Donald Trump's party. Trump ain't gonna let Vance tell him what the Republican Party is or should be, the Republican Party ain't going to listen to Vance anyway. Vance can think and rethink as much as he wants in private, but publicly he will adopt whatever Trump wants.
Vance's "rethinking" so far goes from "Trump was a failed President" to "I want to support Trump to be the President again!"
-
This sounds like a novel idea. Early American society was homogenous enough that you didn’t need the state to provide virtue.
I get the impulse, I don’t know if it’s going to work. It seems like the same sort of thing the wokies tried to do (we know the right way to live and will enshrine it in law).
And I say this as someone that values traditional wisdom.
-
The article asks "is JD Vance trying to rethink the Republican Party."
The answer is it doesn't matter. The Republican Party is Donald Trump's party. Trump ain't gonna let Vance tell him what the Republican Party is or should be, the Republican Party ain't going to listen to Vance anyway. Vance can think and rethink as much as he wants in private, but publicly he will adopt whatever Trump wants.
Vance's "rethinking" so far goes from "Trump was a failed President" to "I want to support Trump to be the President again!"
@Axtremus said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
The article asks "is JD Vance trying to rethink the Republican Party."
The answer is it doesn't matter. The Republican Party is Donald Trump's party. Trump ain't gonna let Vance tell him what the Republican Party is or should be, the Republican Party ain't going to listen to Vance anyway. Vance can think and rethink as much as he wants in private, but publicly he will adopt whatever Trump wants.
Vance's "rethinking" so far goes from "Trump was a failed President" to "I want to support Trump to be the President again!"
Maybe that's true in the short term but for the long haul you have to be a prince before you can be a king. That's the same game that was playing out with the Democrats, but there with suprising results. Because of one quirky debate Harris is now the future of the Democratic hopes and dreams, and by all measures she is very much like the standard bearers of the past of both parties, somewhat devoid of any intellectual capabilities. (Really good legs, though.)
OK, so let's raise our cups to olden times and elect Trump, but then look for a brighter tomorrow with the Republican party rather than hold to more of the same with the Democrats.
And then just maybe, maybe sometime in the future we can end our habit of electing the dumbest guy in the room the President of the United States of America.
-
@Axtremus said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
The article asks "is JD Vance trying to rethink the Republican Party."
The answer is it doesn't matter. The Republican Party is Donald Trump's party. Trump ain't gonna let Vance tell him what the Republican Party is or should be, the Republican Party ain't going to listen to Vance anyway. Vance can think and rethink as much as he wants in private, but publicly he will adopt whatever Trump wants.
Vance's "rethinking" so far goes from "Trump was a failed President" to "I want to support Trump to be the President again!"
Maybe that's true in the short term but for the long haul you have to be a prince before you can be a king. That's the same game that was playing out with the Democrats, but there with suprising results. Because of one quirky debate Harris is now the future of the Democratic hopes and dreams, and by all measures she is very much like the standard bearers of the past of both parties, somewhat devoid of any intellectual capabilities. (Really good legs, though.)
OK, so let's raise our cups to olden times and elect Trump, but then look for a brighter tomorrow with the Republican party rather than hold to more of the same with the Democrats.
And then just maybe, maybe sometime in the future we can end our habit of electing the dumbest guy in the room the President of the United States of America.
-
This sounds like a novel idea. Early American society was homogenous enough that you didn’t need the state to provide virtue.
I get the impulse, I don’t know if it’s going to work. It seems like the same sort of thing the wokies tried to do (we know the right way to live and will enshrine it in law).
And I say this as someone that values traditional wisdom.
@xenon said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
This sounds like a novel idea. Early American society was homogenous enough that you didn’t need the state to provide virtue.
I get the impulse, I don’t know if it’s going to work. It seems like the same sort of thing the wokies tried to do (we know the right way to live and will enshrine it in law).
And I say this as someone that values traditional wisdom.
Good point. I guess I would counter that wokeness is the antithesis of traditional wisdom.
-
@Axtremus said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
The article asks "is JD Vance trying to rethink the Republican Party."
The answer is it doesn't matter. The Republican Party is Donald Trump's party. Trump ain't gonna let Vance tell him what the Republican Party is or should be, the Republican Party ain't going to listen to Vance anyway. Vance can think and rethink as much as he wants in private, but publicly he will adopt whatever Trump wants.
Vance's "rethinking" so far goes from "Trump was a failed President" to "I want to support Trump to be the President again!"
Maybe that's true in the short term but for the long haul you have to be a prince before you can be a king. That's the same game that was playing out with the Democrats, but there with suprising results. Because of one quirky debate Harris is now the future of the Democratic hopes and dreams, and by all measures she is very much like the standard bearers of the past of both parties, somewhat devoid of any intellectual capabilities. (Really good legs, though.)
OK, so let's raise our cups to olden times and elect Trump, but then look for a brighter tomorrow with the Republican party rather than hold to more of the same with the Democrats.
And then just maybe, maybe sometime in the future we can end our habit of electing the dumbest guy in the room the President of the United States of America.
-
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
… you have to be a prince before you can be a king.
We are a Constitutional Republic; no kingship or princehood applies.
@Axtremus said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
… you have to be a prince before you can be a king.
We are a Constitutional Republic; no kingship or princehood applies.
Oh really? Then explain Burger King. Does it "not exist", or is that just what you learned as a fry cook at your Russian McDonalds?
Education is extremely important.
-
@Axtremus said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
@Tom-K said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
… you have to be a prince before you can be a king.
We are a Constitutional Republic; no kingship or princehood applies.
Oh really? Then explain Burger King. Does it "not exist", or is that just what you learned as a fry cook at your Russian McDonalds?
@Horace said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
Oh really? Then explain Burger King. Does it "not exist", or is that just what you learned as a fry cook at your Russian McDonalds?
Burger King is merely a king of burger, not of our republic.
Even at Burger King, you need not be a Junior Whopper before your become a Whopper.
There probably never was any Junior Whopper that later become a Whopper. -
@Horace said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
Oh really? Then explain Burger King. Does it "not exist", or is that just what you learned as a fry cook at your Russian McDonalds?
Burger King is merely a king of burger, not of our republic.
Even at Burger King, you need not be a Junior Whopper before your become a Whopper.
There probably never was any Junior Whopper that later become a Whopper.@Axtremus said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
@Horace said in Postliberalism and Vance?:
Oh really? Then explain Burger King. Does it "not exist", or is that just what you learned as a fry cook at your Russian McDonalds?
Burger King is merely a king of burger, not of our republic.
Even at Burger King, you need not be a Junior Whopper before your become a Whopper.
There probably never was any Junior Whopper that later become a Whopper.***TNCR Community Note***
click to show
