this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
234 points (97.6% liked)

politics

18850 readers
4759 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
234
'This is simply insane': Questions raised about vetting of J.D. Vance amid new blow-up (www.rawstory.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by just_another_person@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 92 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Honestly, I don't think any of this would have been flagged as a problem by their campaign. They want these perspectives front and center, they're a feature, not a bug.

They very, very much want the power to indoctrinate children, they're fully aware they cannot survive in a world where people are taught how to think rigorously for themselves. That's just not how religion works, and it's not how autocracy works.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

they’re fully aware they cannot survive in a world where people are taught how to think rigorously for themselves

The more elevated tiers of the conservative movement have plenty of rigorous thinkers. That doesn't save you from bad policy, because the thinking is rigorous within the bounds of their revanchist ideology.

You've still got guys from PNAC running around the Project 2025 committee, looking to MAGA like it was at the end of the Cold War. You've got billionaire tech gooners eager to kick off a shooting war with Iran and China, because it will benefit their aerospace investments. You've got paleocons eager for a new mass media fueled Great Awakening religious revival.

Meanwhile, you have a large body of progressives routinely getting rounded up by police during protest marches, raided by the Texas AG, censured by the AIPAC wing of the Congress, and expelled from universities for even mild criticism of our foreign policy. These aren't uncritical thinkers either.

What we have isn't a cognitive imbalance. It's a power imbalance.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That power imbalance did not arise from nothing though, it's not a necessary state of being in a democratic society. A cognitive imbalance is a necessary pre-requisite for it to form within our structure.

Not half a century ago we didn't have unlimited money running our politics for instance. How it arose merits examination.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not half a century ago we didn’t have unlimited money running our politics for instance.

We had a more fractured and localized fund raising system. But politicians still routinely came from the wealthiest families - the Bushs, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, the Rockefellers - and cash on hand has always been a measure of a campaign's strength.

A cognitive imbalance is a necessary pre-requisite for it to form within our structure.

So long as education is privatized to some degree, imbalances will persist. But even the most crunchy of liberals don't want to abolish Harvard.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you're conflating elitism, wealth and political power. They are three independent factors that certainly can but do not have to co-exist. Any one of them makes the others easier, but is not fundamentally necessary. While you can certainly cherry pick examples where all three are present, this is a far cry from a proper statistical analysis of how often that is actually the case. We wouldn't want simple confirmation bias mucking up our perceptions, and making us forget all the politicians that did not have great wealth, after all. That would be a gross error in thinking.

I disagree that imbalances will persist so long as some private education exists. Basic critical thinking skills can be taught public or private.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Basic critical thinking skills can be taught public or private.

Two people with the same critical capacity and different moral compasses or economic circumstances will reach radically different conclusions on a given subject. The executive manager and the line cook can receive the same education, but reach very different conclusions about - say - a reasonable starting salary or the appropriate amount of sick leave.

Aligning the ideals of the cook with the crook means establishing certain long term social expectations and assumed rewards. "Oh, one guy has an MBA from Wharton. They must just be better than the other so that's why they get more stuff" fits within a rigorous critical analysis wherein elitism is considered a function of meritocracy and certain human lives have more value than others. The executive can go to the grave thinking they deserve the surplus profit extracted from all the base-pay line cooks under their thumb. The mere capacity for critical thinking doesn't change that.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Perhaps. My issue is not solving economic injustice, however, it's getting to a functioning democracy. For that we do not need a perfectly equitable distribution of wealth, but an understanding of sound information and decision-making processes so that individuals are capable of making voting decisions that align better with their interests over just voting for the salesman. This just takes some critical thinking skills.

I don't believe that every person needs to have their interests "aligned", people should be allowed to decide for themselves what their own interests are, even if that be the pursuit of blatantly destructive ends. The system can be made robust in spite of them. It needs to be able to handle that, not necessarily preclude the possibility altogether.

And no, that does not fit with a rigorous critical analysis whatsoever. What if the MBA guy cheated through most of his schoolwork to get his MBA? That would not necessarily be merit anymore. When I say rigorous, I do mean rigorous, and sound critical thinking should uncover these possibilities and take them into account.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My issue is not solving economic injustice, however, it’s getting to a functioning democracy.

Very hard to function as a democracy when a single wealthy patrician can command the economic future of millions of registered voters.

people should be allowed to decide for themselves what their own interests are

Deciding what to do matters little without the means to accomplish it. It means even less when you're deprived of the education and opportunity to know what your options even are. That goes beyond simple critical thinking. You need a real vibrant economic community, one in which "freedom" means the ability to pursue a career and a station irrespective of ethnicity or gender or religious affiliation.

What if the MBA guy cheated through most of his schoolwork to get his MBA? That would not necessarily be merit anymore.

At some point, you get what you measure for and the degree becomes the definition of merit. But I'm less worried about a guy who cheats on a midterm than I am about the capable student who is never admitted in the first place, on the grounds that they aren't of the correct pedigree.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Again, perhaps, but I think you're again grossly exaggerating the problem in order to justify some kind of dramatic change. Not that significant change is not necessary, but I do not see economic reform fixing our country if basic critical thinking is not addressed first.

There's going to be no revolts seizing the means of production any time soon, which means we require voting for politicians that an American will find amenable. Nobody can perform any positive economic reform if we cannot get our facts straight first. Nor would we be effectively coordinating very much civil action.

Sure. I was just pointing out that when you said the following it was utter hogwash:

Aligning the ideals of the cook with the crook means establishing certain long term social expectations and assumed rewards. “Oh, one guy has an MBA from Wharton. They must just be better than the other so that’s why they get more stuff” fits within a rigorous critical analysis wherein elitism is considered a function of meritocracy and certain human lives have more value than others. The executive can go to the grave thinking they deserve the surplus profit extracted from all the base-pay line cooks under their thumb. The mere capacity for critical thinking doesn’t change that

It doesn't actually work that way, and nor should it. A degree is not a guarantee of merit, it cannot be and thinking it is one is foolish. You cannot engineer a system reliably enough to genuinely make that consistently true. There will always be far too many independent variables that cannot be accounted for. Additionally, there are logical, self-serving reasons to engage in more pro-social behaviors that sufficient critical thinking training can help you arrive at.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There’s going to be no revolts seizing the means of production any time soon,

We've had a unionist revival threatening the foundations of dozens of industries.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know about the foundations, but yes, I have been glad to see the strengthening position of labor in recent years.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed this wouldn’t be flagged. This seems entirely consistent with their current messaging and actions. I’d equally believe it was vetted as ok

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 54 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

💥 GOT'EM

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 52 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Come on Donnie, replace him with Brain Worm Bob. Just do it! Nothing could possibly go wrong.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

The chance we will see his severed head strapped to the top of a station wagon would increase EXPONENTIALLY

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Sadly, RFK is more popular and might actually gain him votes.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 43 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Peter Thiel wanted him. Who knows why.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jd-vance-trump-vp-peter-thiel-billionaire/

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 32 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm surprised the couch lover wasn't supported by the pillow guy.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

cushion envy

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Nah, didn’t want his highly carcinogenic stock to get tainted.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That’s not the proper nomenclature, dude. It’s “heterosectional”.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

heterosectional

Oh it's beautiful yes. Yes I wants this

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

Take it home; try it on

[–] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Peter Thiel is so weird. Gay and conservative just don't go together. But I suppose his billions cushion him from the usual level of contempt.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The thing that baffles me is that Thiel thinks for some reason he’ll be spared by the theocrats that are in the Trump bandwagon.

He won’t. The Nationalist Christians really hate the gays. He’ll eventually be “reeducated” just like the rest if the fascists win.

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Re-educated by being murdered

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

All they need to do is to look at how someone like Turing was treated. The guy pretty much is responsible for winning the war, for Pete's sake.

Nope - chemical castration for Teh Ghey as a thank you. And that was from the side fighting against the Nazis. Of course, the Nazis really got things rolling early on by cracking down on trans, so they were far, far worse. Someone like Thiel will NOT be shielded by their money: if the cons ever get their night of the long knives, they'll carry out their vendettas and they have their lists, and prominent gays, no matter how much they are bootlicks of the far right, will be on those lists.

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Did someone say cushion?!

  • J.D. Vance
[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe Thiel just has a fetish for closeted men so he wants to keep everyone locked in

[–] MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

Easily moldable. Like a couch cushion.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"vetting", wait til they see who's at the top of the ticket.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

The orange idiot's idea of "vetting" is asking "what did he say about me?"

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago

Vance launched a broadside at teachers who don't have children of their own, telling a crowd he thinks they are "trying to brainwash the minds of our children."

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Will be interesting to see how this folds out

[–] ProIsh@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

I'm ~~edging my seat~~ on the edge of my seat.

[–] big_slap@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

if it folds out like a futon, we know how it would play out

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago

He said he wouldn't have certified 2020. That was all the vetting Team Cheeto needed.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

*....new blow-up couch.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’d be absolutely shocked if he was vetted at all, in the traditional sense.

[–] smokebuddy@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

he was, politico was sent the whole 271 page document the campaign collected on the weirdo, they're just sitting on it

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/10/trump-campaign-hack-00173503

[–] Jyrdano@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

Im still convinced Vance was chosen primarily because it sounds similar enough to Pence when Trump forgets who his VP is.

[–] smokebuddy@lemmy.today 11 points 2 weeks ago

The media was sent this guy's whole binder of vetting papers after they were leaked, why are they still feigning surprise that this guy is a weirdo?

[–] lemmus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Meanwhile, he’s likely an awful parent to his own kids.

[–] TriPolarBearz@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Son, shut the hell up for 30 seconds about Pikachu.

-JD Vance

[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

If you don't shut up, I'll smack you after I'm done smacking your mother for disturbing me during my alone time in the sectional...ON THE SECTIONAL!!

load more comments
view more: next ›