Official Trump VP thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Haley and Scott turned him down or if Trump and his team are really dumb enough to believe Vance was the best choice.

How are those others a better choice? Vance is the best choice.

Vance adds nothing to this ticket. It's a doubling down on Trump and not bringing in anything new.

I have to say, I feel the tiniest bit better now. I was worried it was going to be Haley.

Agreed, and or Younkin!

No, Youngkin campaigned hard in the Virginia midterms for Republicans across the state and very few of them won. I know when he won the governorship, people had high hopes for him, but he turned out to be a dud who simply won with a combo of suburban moms who were angry about slow Covid school reopenings and a really bad/unmotivating opponent.

DP. Youngkin won because he was a great candidate. Sorry you're still upset that he won, but millions of us are very grateful he did. He's a good guy and an effective governor. Would have made a great VP too.

No, he got lucky with that McAuliffe quote about parents and schools. You being glad that he won doesn't negate the fact that he hasn't been able to get other Rs elected since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does an alleged white trash teenager from Ohio get the cushiest Marines gig there is during a hot war at age 18? An intel gig writing articles in an air conditioned office for a few years. Wow, what a lucky break!

Can we all refrain from using the term "white trash"? It's really bigoted. Also the adjacent "trailer trash." And I say this as a Dem. It just plays into the criticism of Dems and their disdain for "deplorables." Maybe use something softer like "lower-income white teenager" from a "disadvantaged background" or some such thing.

Agree!
Here is a clip of Trump firing someone from the Apprentice for using that term. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-Z5sRwgLM
It will be nice to have someone with decency and integrity back in the White House.

Yes, because when one thinks of decency and integrity, one’s mind immediately goes to Trump. /s

lol so true!

He also didn't fire that guy for saying white trash because he opposed the use of the word. He fired that guy because he thought that jokingly describing yourself as white trash cheapened a brand. He actually said "Why would I buy something from white trash"

Sounds like trump and JD will have so much respect for one another! What a match!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does an alleged white trash teenager from Ohio get the cushiest Marines gig there is during a hot war at age 18? An intel gig writing articles in an air conditioned office for a few years. Wow, what a lucky break!

Can we all refrain from using the term "white trash"? It's really bigoted. Also the adjacent "trailer trash." And I say this as a Dem. It just plays into the criticism of Dems and their disdain for "deplorables." Maybe use something softer like "lower-income white teenager" from a "disadvantaged background" or some such thing.

Agree!
Here is a clip of Trump firing someone from the Apprentice for using that term. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A-Z5sRwgLM
It will be nice to have someone with decency and integrity back in the White House.

Yes, because when one thinks of decency and integrity, one’s mind immediately goes to Trump. /s

lol so true!

He also didn't fire that guy for saying white trash because he opposed the use of the word. He fired that guy because he thought that jokingly describing yourself as white trash cheapened a brand. He actually said "Why would I buy something from white trash"

but as the guy slinked out of the Boardroom, Trump did say "you shouldn't use that expression anymore either," which is good advice. So Trump at least has more class than the DCUM Biden supporters who think the term is ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He sets off my gaydar, sorry. And his mentor is a gay billionaire man. Probably another Republican closet case Ivy Leaguer who prefers men. An epidemic dating back to at least the 80s with the congressional page scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_congressional_page_sex_scandal

Not a stretch, he did marry a woman who looks like a man.

Dem here. That’s exactly what MAGA said about Michelle Obama! Be better!

Be better about what? DC is overflowing with closet homosexuals, on both sides of the aisle. It's a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy League alumni who pose as anti-elite, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual, anti-expertise populists while primarily representing the interests of billionaire capitalist sociopaths are a plague that has taken over the Republican Party. Vance is phonier than Trump or Cruz or Cotton or Alito, if that is possible. It’s all a con. They jump in front of the 200+ year old nativist and bigoted and ignorant right-wing movement and appoint themselves its leaders while turning it into a vehicle for yet more tax breaks and deregulation for the capitalist establishment.

Don’t forget married in Hindu ceremony, recently “converted” to Catholicism (he only, not his wife and kids), and Mr Catholic’s billionaire puppetmaster is a sodomite.

You put converted in quotation marks, implying that it was insincere and, thus, politically motivated.

Who on earth thinks converting to Catholicism is a winning political move?

Speaking as a cradle catholic, converts are by and large more conservative than us. I doubt JD's church is like, say, Holy Trinity in Georgetown. I would bet my retirement account it's theologically and culturally conservative - probably lots of families with 5+ kids, homeschool/Catholic school is common, I would not be surprised if a lot of the parishioners thought Vatican II was "invalid" (a common debate at the church I grew up attending) and prefer to attend Latin Mass. I remember being told growing up that "good" Catholics voted for Republicans because of the pro-life issue*. Converts typically convert to that brand of tradcath. They rarely convert to the Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi/Jesuit style Catholicism.

I was not the one who put "convert" in quotes, but it's weird to me that only he converted and not the wife or kids. I suspect this was done to network with and appeal to the Amy Coney Barrett style Catholics, who are a huge presence in conservatism.

*Conveniently neglecting the fact that "pro-life" also means you oppose the death penalty, which Republicans don't. Now I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty and I mostly vote Dem and I don't go to Mass, so you see how well those kinds of CCD lessons went over.

His oldest child (only one who is school-aged) goes to Catholic school.

I know, I saw that earlier in the thread. The kid is not Catholic unless/until baptized Catholic. I haven't been to Mass in 15 years. I am still Catholic because I was baptized Catholic. My protestant father goes to Mass with my mother every weekend. He is not Catholic and will never be until he converts. (I actually don't think he needs to be rebaptized because he is a member of a church whose baptismal rites the Vatican considers valid...it's convoluted, imo.)

JD Vance's kids can go to Catholic school and CCD but until they are baptized Catholic they aren't Catholic. this is not a knock on the kids. Frankly I think they're better off not being raised Catholic, particularly the girl. But it's weird to me only he converted and he didn't bother getting them baptized. (To my knowledge. Of course if he did, correct me.) That makes me think it's political. If you really believed your church was the one true church...you'd get your kids baptized in it. For example, my mom marrying a protestant but making sure her kids were all baptized Catholic at three months old exactly.

Again this is all just conjecture from, admittedly, a very biased lapsed Catholic.

I'm sorry, but no. Just no. My sibling and I were baptized when we were 11 years old - old enough to have gone through the baptismal classes at church and decided for ourselves whether we wanted to be part of the church or not. We chose to be - we didn't have it foisted on us as infants. In addition, Vance's wife is Hindu. They obviously aren't going to force their kids to be one or the other - most likely, as in many mixed-religion marriages - they will allow their kids to make their own choices as they grow older. You have a very narrow view - there is not one "right" way to go about any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russ Douhat had a very revealing interview with Vance in The NY Times. Whatever your politics, it’s hard to argue that Biden, Harris, or Trump are nearly as smart or insightful as Vance, who offers nuanced, well formed answers to every question posed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html

This guy seems like an actual intellectual, not a lightweight peddling cliches and poll tested talking points, which is refreshing.

Talk is cheap. He would force his own wife or daughter to bear her rapist's baby. So intellectual! Such nuance! So insightful and well formed!

I like it when he says it is “inconvenient” when a woman becomes pregnant from rape.

Once again:

Vance is opposed to abortion; on the website for his 2022 campaign for the Senate, he declared himself “100 percent pro-life” and called for “eliminating abortion.” However, he said on CNN in December 2023: “We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t. And I say that as a person who wants to protect as many unborn babies as possible. We have to provide exceptions for life of the mother, for rape, and so forth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/politics/fact-check-biden-campaign-j-d-vance-heritage-foundation/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russ Douhat had a very revealing interview with Vance in The NY Times. Whatever your politics, it’s hard to argue that Biden, Harris, or Trump are nearly as smart or insightful as Vance, who offers nuanced, well formed answers to every question posed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html

This guy seems like an actual intellectual, not a lightweight peddling cliches and poll tested talking points, which is refreshing.

Talk is cheap. He would force his own wife or daughter to bear her rapist's baby. So intellectual! Such nuance! So insightful and well formed!

I like it when he says it is “inconvenient” when a woman becomes pregnant from rape.

Once again:

Vance is opposed to abortion; on the website for his 2022 campaign for the Senate, he declared himself “100 percent pro-life” and called for “eliminating abortion.” However, he said on CNN in December 2023: “We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t. And I say that as a person who wants to protect as many unborn babies as possible. We have to provide exceptions for life of the mother, for rape, and so forth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/politics/fact-check-biden-campaign-j-d-vance-heritage-foundation/index.html

He has an anti abortion agenda like trump and the rest of the GOP. That is the GOP now. A losing stance but that is their stance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy League alumni who pose as anti-elite, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual, anti-expertise populists while primarily representing the interests of billionaire capitalist sociopaths are a plague that has taken over the Republican Party. Vance is phonier than Trump or Cruz or Cotton or Alito, if that is possible. It’s all a con. They jump in front of the 200+ year old nativist and bigoted and ignorant right-wing movement and appoint themselves its leaders while turning it into a vehicle for yet more tax breaks and deregulation for the capitalist establishment.

Don’t forget married in Hindu ceremony, recently “converted” to Catholicism (he only, not his wife and kids), and Mr Catholic’s billionaire puppetmaster is a sodomite.

You put converted in quotation marks, implying that it was insincere and, thus, politically motivated.

Who on earth thinks converting to Catholicism is a winning political move?

Speaking as a cradle catholic, converts are by and large more conservative than us. I doubt JD's church is like, say, Holy Trinity in Georgetown. I would bet my retirement account it's theologically and culturally conservative - probably lots of families with 5+ kids, homeschool/Catholic school is common, I would not be surprised if a lot of the parishioners thought Vatican II was "invalid" (a common debate at the church I grew up attending) and prefer to attend Latin Mass. I remember being told growing up that "good" Catholics voted for Republicans because of the pro-life issue*. Converts typically convert to that brand of tradcath. They rarely convert to the Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi/Jesuit style Catholicism.

I was not the one who put "convert" in quotes, but it's weird to me that only he converted and not the wife or kids. I suspect this was done to network with and appeal to the Amy Coney Barrett style Catholics, who are a huge presence in conservatism.

*Conveniently neglecting the fact that "pro-life" also means you oppose the death penalty, which Republicans don't. Now I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty and I mostly vote Dem and I don't go to Mass, so you see how well those kinds of CCD lessons went over.

And most Democrats are ANTI-death penalty. So how do you square that?

The fact that it keeps getting used on innocent people and disproportionately on Black people, poor people and people who have low IQs who may or may not be responsible for their crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russ Douhat had a very revealing interview with Vance in The NY Times. Whatever your politics, it’s hard to argue that Biden, Harris, or Trump are nearly as smart or insightful as Vance, who offers nuanced, well formed answers to every question posed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html

This guy seems like an actual intellectual, not a lightweight peddling cliches and poll tested talking points, which is refreshing.

Talk is cheap. He would force his own wife or daughter to bear her rapist's baby. So intellectual! Such nuance! So insightful and well formed!

I like it when he says it is “inconvenient” when a woman becomes pregnant from rape.

Once again:

Vance is opposed to abortion; on the website for his 2022 campaign for the Senate, he declared himself “100 percent pro-life” and called for “eliminating abortion.” However, he said on CNN in December 2023: “We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t. And I say that as a person who wants to protect as many unborn babies as possible. We have to provide exceptions for life of the mother, for rape, and so forth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/politics/fact-check-biden-campaign-j-d-vance-heritage-foundation/index.html

Why do you keep ignoring his earlier statements? Why is he allowed to flip flop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russ Douhat had a very revealing interview with Vance in The NY Times. Whatever your politics, it’s hard to argue that Biden, Harris, or Trump are nearly as smart or insightful as Vance, who offers nuanced, well formed answers to every question posed:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html

This guy seems like an actual intellectual, not a lightweight peddling cliches and poll tested talking points, which is refreshing.

Talk is cheap. He would force his own wife or daughter to bear her rapist's baby. So intellectual! Such nuance! So insightful and well formed!

I like it when he says it is “inconvenient” when a woman becomes pregnant from rape.

Once again:

Vance is opposed to abortion; on the website for his 2022 campaign for the Senate, he declared himself “100 percent pro-life” and called for “eliminating abortion.” However, he said on CNN in December 2023: “We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t. And I say that as a person who wants to protect as many unborn babies as possible. We have to provide exceptions for life of the mother, for rape, and so forth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/politics/fact-check-biden-campaign-j-d-vance-heritage-foundation/index.html

He has an anti abortion agenda like trump and the rest of the GOP. That is the GOP now. A losing stance but that is their stance.

+1 And not just anti-abortion, but anti birth control, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy League alumni who pose as anti-elite, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual, anti-expertise populists while primarily representing the interests of billionaire capitalist sociopaths are a plague that has taken over the Republican Party. Vance is phonier than Trump or Cruz or Cotton or Alito, if that is possible. It’s all a con. They jump in front of the 200+ year old nativist and bigoted and ignorant right-wing movement and appoint themselves its leaders while turning it into a vehicle for yet more tax breaks and deregulation for the capitalist establishment.

Don’t forget married in Hindu ceremony, recently “converted” to Catholicism (he only, not his wife and kids), and Mr Catholic’s billionaire puppetmaster is a sodomite.

You put converted in quotation marks, implying that it was insincere and, thus, politically motivated.

Who on earth thinks converting to Catholicism is a winning political move?

Speaking as a cradle catholic, converts are by and large more conservative than us. I doubt JD's church is like, say, Holy Trinity in Georgetown. I would bet my retirement account it's theologically and culturally conservative - probably lots of families with 5+ kids, homeschool/Catholic school is common, I would not be surprised if a lot of the parishioners thought Vatican II was "invalid" (a common debate at the church I grew up attending) and prefer to attend Latin Mass. I remember being told growing up that "good" Catholics voted for Republicans because of the pro-life issue*. Converts typically convert to that brand of tradcath. They rarely convert to the Joe Biden/Nancy Pelosi/Jesuit style Catholicism.

I was not the one who put "convert" in quotes, but it's weird to me that only he converted and not the wife or kids. I suspect this was done to network with and appeal to the Amy Coney Barrett style Catholics, who are a huge presence in conservatism.

*Conveniently neglecting the fact that "pro-life" also means you oppose the death penalty, which Republicans don't. Now I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty and I mostly vote Dem and I don't go to Mass, so you see how well those kinds of CCD lessons went over.

His oldest child (only one who is school-aged) goes to Catholic school.

I know, I saw that earlier in the thread. The kid is not Catholic unless/until baptized Catholic. I haven't been to Mass in 15 years. I am still Catholic because I was baptized Catholic. My protestant father goes to Mass with my mother every weekend. He is not Catholic and will never be until he converts. (I actually don't think he needs to be rebaptized because he is a member of a church whose baptismal rites the Vatican considers valid...it's convoluted, imo.)

JD Vance's kids can go to Catholic school and CCD but until they are baptized Catholic they aren't Catholic. this is not a knock on the kids. Frankly I think they're better off not being raised Catholic, particularly the girl. But it's weird to me only he converted and he didn't bother getting them baptized. (To my knowledge. Of course if he did, correct me.) That makes me think it's political. If you really believed your church was the one true church...you'd get your kids baptized in it. For example, my mom marrying a protestant but making sure her kids were all baptized Catholic at three months old exactly.

Again this is all just conjecture from, admittedly, a very biased lapsed Catholic.

You don't have to know the secret password to get in you know. You can just show up and attend. And they will take donations from anyone.

She is correct though you know. You can just show up and attend but only someone christened in the Catholic Church is considered Catholic.

By who? It is a church full of folks that show up for an hour long mass, maybe give some money, and then leave. No one has a clue who is and is not in full compliance with the assorted sacraments. That has no practical application.

Do you know how churches work? God knows. So if God knows someone isn't baptized Catholic, they're not getting into Heaven.

If you were serious about your faith you would baptize your kids in it. She's saying the fact that they aren't makes her think he's not serious.

Good lord, what an idiot.

Speaking of idiots ^^, you don't baptize your kids if your spouse is of a different religion/doesn't want them baptized. He can absolutely be serious about his faith without dragging his kids into it - his kids who have an Indian/Hindu mother.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In any case. Regardless if Vance is baptized, does he intend to impose Catholic views on all of us, whether we are Catholic or not

BS. Biden is a Catholic. And Vance will be the VP - hardly someone to "impose Catholic views on all of us." Quit your hysterical fear-mongering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case. Regardless if Vance is baptized, does he intend to impose Catholic views on all of us, whether we are Catholic or not

BS. Biden is a Catholic. And Vance will be the VP - hardly someone to "impose Catholic views on all of us." Quit your hysterical fear-mongering.

Lots of democrats are Catholic. It is the Christian right that wants to force it on everyone, not the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other weird thing about his wife being Hindu - not that I believe it but Catholics do - is that there is no way you would let your spouse, who you presume to love, risk burning in eternity by worshipping false gods. If you truly believed Catholicism was the only way to Heaven, you'd be getting her into your faith ASAP.

It would be one thing if she was Episcopalian or Lutheran. She worships completely different gods than Catholics. Multiple gods. It is completely invalid in the eyes of Rome.

Just stop your utter lunacy and bigotry. You are truly disgusting. We get that YOU would "not let" your spouse worship a different religion, but normal people aren't like you (thank god). They are each allowed to worship as they see fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other weird thing about his wife being Hindu - not that I believe it but Catholics do - is that there is no way you would let your spouse, who you presume to love, risk burning in eternity by worshipping false gods. If you truly believed Catholicism was the only way to Heaven, you'd be getting her into your faith ASAP.

It would be one thing if she was Episcopalian or Lutheran. She worships completely different gods than Catholics. Multiple gods. It is completely invalid in the eyes of Rome.

Don't vote for him if you can't tolerate his marriage to a Hindu. My list of reasons to not vote for him is long but it does include that one. But if that is it for you, so be it.

Girl, be so for real. He could be married to my Episcopalian sister and I wouldn't vote for him.

I'm not saying his marriage to a Hindu is a reason to not vote for him. I'm saying it's evidence that he's not serious about being Catholic and that his conversion was for electoral purposes.

Please try to keep up with the thread.

DP. Are you the moron telling others to "keep up" when you yourself seem like the most ignorant person on this thread? You clearly know nothing about 1) religion or 2) respectful, equal marriages. I suggest you do some research.