THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2024
Yes, his running-mate won: We bring no expertise to such matters, but we'll stand by the speculation we've offered in the past:
In all likelihood, you can't grow up the way JD Vance was forced to grow up and emerge from those years fully well. That's our way of building a framework around the answer the candidate has finally bestowed on the world.
Did Candidate Trump win the last election? Mediaite is providing the tape as Vance clearly says that he did. At that site, Alex Griffing provides the play-by-play of this strange man's belated claim:
JD Vance Says Trump Won The 2020 Election...
GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance was grilled by comedian Jason Selvig about who actually won the 2020 presidential election in a clip posted to X on Thursday.
Selvig, who is best known for his comedic man-on-the-street interviews, asked Vance repeatedly if Donald Trump won the 2020 election—a hot topic surrounding Vance after Tuesday’s debate in which Vance said he would have helped in Trump’s “alternative electors’ scheme to overturn the election.
“Who won the 2020 election? Could you just answer? Did Donald Trump win?” Selvig asked Vance as he walked.
“Yes,” Vance clearly replied.
“He did win?” shot back a surprised Selvig. Vance then added, “Yep.”
Selvig followed up, "So will you, will you concede?”
“Will you concede if your opponent gets, if your opponent gets more votes, will you concede?” Selvig pressed.
“I really feel bad for you, man,” Vance replied as Selvig again asked, “I just want to know if your, if your opponent gets more votes, will you concede?” Vance then walked into a room without answering the question.
Our lord and master Candidate Vance feels sorry for Jason Selvig? Under the emerging circumstances, we feel sorry for the whole human race!
You can see the tape of the exchange at the Mediaite post. Over at The New Republic, Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling provides her report of the matter, and provides the Selvig tape, under this headline:
JD Vance Finally Answers That Crucial V.P. Debate Question
We bring no psychiatric expertise to this particular matter. But our current imitation of discourse is littered with the behavior of people who grew up in very unusual circumstances—in ways which may conceivably wreck the soul and damage the human heart.
A final guess:
Viewers of the Fox news Channel won't be told about any of this. We expect to have more in the next few days about some of the things those neighbors and friends already aren't being told about events out here in the world.
At Tuesday evening's debate, Vance wouldn't answer the question when Tim Walz asked. When Vance refused to answer several questions, two moderators from CBS News decided to take a pass.
Were we humans built for life in this modern "democratized" world? Later on, we'll answer your questions about the frequency of hurricanes—about what Greg Gutfeld angrily several million viewers on last evening's Gutfeld! show.
As we noted this morning, there he went again! Gutfeld—he's 60 years old!—routinely tells viewers that climate change is a "major hoax." All across Blue America, our major news orgs, our beloved journalist stars, all agree to avert their gaze as such lessons are taught.
At Tuesday evening's debate, two moderators kept taking a pass. The New York Times takes the same approach every day of the week!
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past". - 1984
ReplyDeleteVance is unusually unpopular and weird, he is aware of this and has no solution other than to lean into it.
ReplyDeleteYes, corporate media is garbage; it has always been this way. Thanks to the democratization of media we now have a wealth of independent media generating worthwhile content. This is likely why Vance is so unpopular, and will likely play a significant role in Trump losing and unable to implement a coup.
"In all likelihood, you can't grow up the way JD Vance was forced to grow up and emerge from those years fully well. "
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. Children are resilient and there are circumstances that support that coping when kids grow up in difficult circumstances. The idea that adversity always makes kids grow up unwell is unsupported by evidence. It is a myth that Somerby keeps repeating.
For example, a child who has a close older sibling, an aunt or uncle, an interested adult at school, church or in the neighborhood, a role model in a book, will be better off than a child abandoned, even when there is abuse happening. Drunken or drug addicted parents do not always harm their children, if there are sources of support that the kids can draw upon while growing up. Often, the children learn how to cope and how to avoid becoming affected themselves, which strengthens their character and personality. Similarly, there are children who grow up in favorable circumstances who become troubled because they do not have support, resources or someone to guide them when parents are self-involved, narcissistic or unloving. Trump is an example of that, not of a child in abusive circumstances. He grew up wealthy, spoiled, but whether he was deprived of love is unclear, only Somerby's speculation (contradicted by Mary Trump). Judging a child's experience from their observed circumstances, especially from outside the family, may not provide a good explanation of how that child got so messed up as an adult.
JD Vance feels very sorry for himself but that doesn't mean he had a hard time growing up, as claimed. More resilient kids in worse circumstances turn out better than Vance. Is that Vance's fault? There are examples of celebrities claiming abuse whose relatives deny their claims, and many examples of people who were provably abused who have turned out well. Oprah is an example of the former category, Steve Martin, an example of the latter.
Somerby is not on solid ground when he claims that Trump or Vance or any of his favored few (Tucker Carlson) suffered hard times. Most children from divorced homes are not like Tucker or Vance. Trump's parents did not divorce. The riddle of why some children become so messed up while others do not, is part of the literature on resilience and coping. It is not straightfowardly a result of the actions of parents or the presence of hardship while growing up. Somerby should read more about how children survive difficult childhoods, before trying to draw a straight line from Vance's fictional depiction of his childhood or from sociopaths like Trump, who might not have been any different with a more normal childhood, given that psychpathy is considered genetic and innate, not situational or the result of parental neglect or abuse.
Somerby is creating fiction here, not talking about science. That makes him a lot like JD Vance and Trump himself, who tells whatever lie will get him ahead.
Freud said that there are no "fully well" people. We all compromise with our life circumstances and do our best with where we find ourselves in life. Fully well is not a psychiatric term any competent mental health expert uses. Maybe "better adjusted" but using the metaphor of well or diseased is wrong when talking about most people.
DeleteVance is a sociopath. He admitted that he lies to promote conservative ideas.
DeleteVance took private golf lessons at a golf course in his neighborhood when he was in high school. His book was about as authentic as he is.
DeleteBased on objective criteria, Vance is very well indeed. Outstanding academic record. Outstanding earnings. Outstanding political success. Stable marriage and family. What more do you want?
ReplyDeleteFor him not to deliberately tell lies?
DeleteSadly, telling lies is now an entrenched part of political campaigns. E.g. Walz claiming the he was in Hong Kong during the Tianamin Square massacre
DeleteDevastating riposte. So on the mark. So consequential, and relevant to the campaign, compared to Vance saying twice (once after corrected by Walz) that Trump 'saved' Obamacare.
DeleteCompare apples to organges much?
Hector - Regardless of whose lies are bigger, IMO all four of them will say anything to win. The unfortunate result is that you and I can’t know how they would govern, based on their words.
DeleteDiC - How about if, instead, we assume that Trump is telling the truth about 20% tariffs on everything. How do you think that will affect the price level and the economy?
DeleteDG imo a 20 per cent tariff across the board would be a disaster. I can’t find Trump’s actual words. Do you know whether Trump said he would do this? Or did he merely float the idea?
DeleteI don’t believe Harris/Walz would say anything to get elected.
DeleteBased upon objective criteria, Vance grew up in a middle class townhouse in Ohio, not unlike housing to be found in any urban area in this country, eg Queens NY. Much of his time was spent with his grandparents. His grandfather had a nice steelworkers pension and between the two of his grandparents their income from work and pension was over $100,000/yr. Which in dollars today would be substantially more. They took vacations. There was a nice golf course up the street and Vance took private lessons in high school. The home looked nothing like the wooden one story structure pictured on the cover of his book. So much fabrication.
Delete8:08 Why don’t you get off your ass and look stuff up on the internet that cannot be found on the right wing sites you typically spend your time wandering through? Trump’s plans for tariffs are readily available to anyone with a scintilla of curiosity. God forbid you should stumble across a piece of information that is antithetical to your adoration of that demented sociopath.
DeleteI appreciate David in Cal's bi-partisanship.
DeleteLike everyone on the Left, if he was in a room full of neo-Nazi's, white supremacists, and "fine people" on the Right, he couldn't tell the third group from the other two, either.
Thanks, David.
"The unfortunate result is that you and I can’t know how they would govern, based on their words."
DeletePart of governing is lying or not while you're governing. So we know, at a minimum, that Trump-Vance would lie more frequently as they governed, about much bigger issues than Harris-Walz would.
And if a VP Walz was lying, you could tell because he'd get flustered and show a little guilt, but Vance would just smile as he lied, a calm, reassuring, easy going smile.
Trump has already proven he cannot be trusted to tell the American people the truth when he was faced with a genuine crisis. He has already demonstrated he cannot be trusted to exercise the power of the presidency legally or constitutionally.
DeleteTrump poisons everything he touches. Latest case in point.
From CNN:
A judge excoriated a Colorado county clerk for her crimes and lies before sentencing her Thursday to nine years behind bars for a data-breach scheme spawned from the rampant false claims about voting machine fraud in the 2020 presidential race.
District Judge Matthew Barrett told former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters — after earlier sparring with her for continuing to press discredited claims about rigged voting machines — that she never took her job seriously.
“I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen,” Barrett told her in handing down the sentence. “You are no hero. You abused your position and you’re a charlatan.”
Jurors found Peters guilty in August for allowing a man to misuse a security card to access to the Mesa County election system and for being deceptive about that person’s identity.
The man was affiliated with MyPillow chief executive Mike Lindell, a prominent promoter of false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election from former President Donald Trump.
This crazy woman was given a position of trust as County Clerk in Colorado, but decided to go all in with Trump illegal and corrupt scheme to steal the election and is now going to jail for 9 years. Do you think Trump gives a shit about her now?
Most Trump cult fans will not even bother to read the Jack Smith document just released.
Like Dickhead in Cal, they simply don't give a shit.
"Most Trump cult fans will not even bother to read the Jack Smith document just released."
DeleteTell them Trump said he wants to give reparations to black people, and it's all in Jack Smith's document.
#bothsidescantroll
“ Viewers of the Fox news Channel won't be told about any of this.”
ReplyDeleteThose poor Fox viewers. They simply have no other sources of information. Sad.
Biden's outdated political instincts have brought us to the brink of a war with Iran. Advocating unwavering support for Israel and projecting toughness might have worked during previous decades but the reality now is more complex. The Middle East has become far more multipolar and Iran’s influence has grown significantly. They have developed a sophisticated network of decentralization proxy forces across the region that have the capability to strike U.S. and Israeli targets far beyond their own borders. The U.S. no longer holds the same unchallenged global power it once did. China and Russia have increased their presence and influence in the Middle East, complicating U.S. efforts to act unilaterally or even form reliable coalitions.
ReplyDeleteBiden's approach to the Middle East is like his approach to a lot of other things: outdated, reactive, diplomatically weak, and tactically short-sighted. Ultimately, it will have led us into World War III. Maybe that was his plan all along.
Sez you
DeleteNice rant. Please get help. Russia is having enough trouble being a presence in Russia now , let alone in the Middle East.
DeleteI'm voting for Trump, as soon as he promises to zero out the Defense budget.
Delete"Maybe that was his plan all along."
DeleteMaybe? Don't be such a cuck.
Biden is a Marxist who wants to overthrow the US government and abolish private property. Right?
The new documents made public on the Washington trial ( don’t count on Bob reffering to them or how the story is covered) throws shade and shame on Bob. They illustrate that the Jan 6 Committee was not only correct but if anything, understated the odious nature of Trump’s actions.
ReplyDeleteBob’s response to the committee and to Jan 6 itself was, essentially, “so what?”
The Somerbys of the world make it possible for the Vances to thrive. His anger now feels like projection.
Maybe the 'so what' reaction you remember was that the Committee was mostly for show. If the Jan 6 Committee's intention was to hold Trump legally accountable, the new documents don't matter as the don't alter the constitutional arguments of the Supreme Court.
DeleteIf the Jan 6 Committee's intention was to generate negative publicity for Trump, the new documents and the surprise of their October release makes sense. But it's all a publicity stunt. It has no legal weight. It's manipulative, divisive, partisan overreach which is great for guys like us who are drunk on partisanship and have made politics our substitute for religion. But it's maybe not that great when viewed more soberly and objectively.
You would be able to see here, if you had the ability to read, that he is making a media complaint that some media members exaggerate the significance of events related to the investigation, which fits a pattern of giving audiences the impression that Trump's legal downfall is imminent, even when the news itself is underwhelming or insignificant.
Deletehttps://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2022/01/top-rhodes-scholar-mugs-and-clowns.html
The surprise of their October release is completely the fault of Trump and his lawyers dragging it out. Your labeling this document manipulative and divisive in no way discount it contents and, as is so often the case, is a self indictment of partisan MAGA bullshit.
Delete…discounts its….
DeleteTrump's lawyers demanding to see the proof of his treason so close to the general election was a big mistake.
DeleteTreason McRapey's stiffing of his lawyers, is biting him in the ass.
Delete"The Somerbys of the world make it possible for the Vances to thrive. His anger now feels like projection."
DeleteYour stupidity feels like a migraine.
"If the Jan 6 Committee's intention was to hold Trump legally accountable, the new documents don't matter as the(y) don't alter the constitutional arguments of the Supreme Court."
DeleteNot sure what the J6 Committee has to do with the new filing. The filing was prompted by the Supreme Court immunity ruling. It provides evidence and arguments that Trump's actions in trying to overturn the election were not part of his official duties, but were undertaken in his role as a candidate for office; hence not immune from prosecution.
You may not think they succeed in that endeavor, but very odd to say "they don't matter."
Also curious that you say the filing has no "legal weight" since it's a court filing by a prosecutor.
Do you understand anything of what you're saying?
Hector - the OP at 8:50 claimed the new filings proved the J6 Committee was correct. Did you miss that?
DeleteI quoted 9:27, who for some reason raises the possibility that the J6 Committee was trying to hold Trump legally responsible (which only a court can do), and then tries to link the J6 Committee to Smith's new filing, which also makes no sense.
DeleteHector - doesn't 8:50 connect Smith’s new filing with the January 6th Committee’s findings?
DeleteYes, it does.
Delete9:27. Your idiocy seems a malignant, bottomless pit. The Supreme Court, if you can respect a Court where Justices do not recuse themselves when the defendant appointed them, only controdicts the Constitution. There silly ruling will live in infamy. Smith has done a great job in sidestepping their bullshit. Will they simply piss on our system or government again if it gets sent back? Maybe. They may figure their dirty payback has now been made in full. What these new reports illustrate is that Trump’s shocking criminality was even worse than what Somerby atttempted to shrug off.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The new document makes it very clear that Jan 6 was instigated by Trump as a power grab that was untethered to any notion that he won the election. Treasonous sociopath.
ReplyDelete