Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
For Vice President of the United States
Donald Trump has chosen the junior Senator from Ohio, JD Vance. Vance, who will turn 40 on August 2nd, is the youngest candidate on a major party ticket since Dwight Eisenhower chose the 39-year old Richard Nixon in 1952.
Vance was elected to the Senate just two years ago. He was critical of Trump during his 2016 run but Trump endorsed him in his Senate race against Democratic Congressman Tim Ryan, which he won 53-47%. He was a public relations specialist with the Marine Corps during the Iraq War. He has a BA from The Ohio State University and his law degree from Yale.
He came to prominence in 2016 with his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.
Published in General
I like him, he’s a good choice. He’s got an inspiring life story and sets up a longer term person/platform for Trump’s MAGA platform. Good to see some youth on our side.
Yes, I’m pleased.
I’m from Ohio and I’m not that crazy about Vance. Pardon the broad labels, but he is an isolationist and and anti-free trader. He seems to be good on other conservative fronts (excepting the National Debt in which almost nobody is in good standing).
From a practical standpoint, Vance will not help Trump in the Electoral College because Ohio is already on board. The other interesting thing is that Trump has recommended that Ohio Governor Mike DeWine appoint Vivek Ramaswamy to Vance’s Senate seat. I would not predict that DeWine will follow a Trump recommendation, but I also don’t know what DeWine thinks of Ramaswamy.
Please explain.
Not sure how I feel about a Vice President who’s younger than I am… this will be a first for me!
I’m sure he has drawbacks, too.
I take it to mean that Vance is not a neocon.
Well, except on Israel, of course.
For comparison purposes: Joe Biden was running for his 3rd Senate term in 1984, the year Vance was born.
LOL. I was already a fan. You don’t have to sell him to me.
Biden was born closer to Lincoln’s second inauguration than his own inauguration. Seventy-seven versus seventy-nine.
Don’t really understand the pick. Who is voting for Vance today that isn’t already in for Trump? He’s young, he acts young (and by young I don’t mean young and energetic, I mean young and immature), and has been a firebrand for one side of the Republican civil war going on, which to me seems like a weakness.
A name floated out months ago that no one’s been talking about recently is Ben Carson. He fits in with Trump’s strategy of trying to pull the black community away from Dem’s grip, he’s got a better executive temperament for the office than J.D., he just feels like a steadier hand on the wheel of the ship of state if the need should arise than J.D. That temperament is also one that complements Trump’s rather than doubles down on it. And I don’t know anybody with strong feelings against him. Pretty much everyone likes and respects the guy, even if they weren’t planning to vote for him. Seems like a safer pick to me.
And I’ll reiterate again, I just feel like the Venn diagram of JD’s circle of support is completely contained already within Trump’s.
I can tell why Vance was picked hes bullet insurance.
After Saturday Trump clearly needs it.
On another note hes been on the Ricochet podcast. :)
The pick is legacy. The reliable MAGA successor. The election is won.
Erroneous repost.
I worry about that kind of thinking. Nothing’s over until it’s over.
I think this is why Trump chose him. Of all the candidates, Vance is the most likely to be loyal to Trump. That was Trump’s ultimate criterion. His entire fortune is entirely due to MAGA. Thats what Trump wants. Not someone who had shown he can run a state or a business, and can therefore do the job of president. Just loyalty.
But what about all the binders of oppressed transgenders…of…of…color!
I just don’t understand. I’m verklempt.
The upside for Vance is, should the ticket lose, he’s still in the Senate.
Wasn’t able to find it with the new search engine. Didn’t help that when I started with Vance it found every post by member Vance Richards. Adding terms weren’t helpful. Finally opened the podcast’s RSS feed and searched on Vance. Need to go back and listen to it. I’d even commented on it.
Vance has been one of the Senate’s biggest opponents of sending aid to Ukraine, and has been critical of U.S. involvement in the Middle-East in general, as he advocates staying out of international affairs. However, as Jerry has pointed out, Vance’s one big exception is his gung-ho support for Israel, which contradicts his notions for the rest of the world.
On the trade front, Vance advocates slapping high tariffs on imported goods to supposedly help out our own manufacturing base (which does the opposite, but it is difficult to convince people of this). He is generally in favor of protectionism, which is another way of saying “favoring American workers over foreign workers by having the American consumers pay the inevitable cost increases.” I know this policy is quite popular among Republicans at the moment, and won’t lose J. D. much support, but I find it a drawback.
Overall, I’m glad he’s a senator, in place of a possible democrat, but he’s not my ideal.
April 21, 2017 Ricochet Podcast #349
Funny Ben Carson is now top trending on X. I guess it’s comforting to know I’m not the only one who was giving this a lot of consideration.
He’s just insurance. The reason nobody took a shot at Obama, Bush II, Clinton or Biden was because their VPs scared the opposition even more.
I think it is a mistake, though. In this election, the VPs are more important than most. Not because of assassination, but because of heart attacks. With that in mind, grabbing those few votes from the center could very well decide everything.
JD ain’t gonna help with that.
I get your point, but conservatives just don’t do that kind of thing against lawful opponents in the first place.
ah, yes, the good old ‘our side is always clean’ argument. Then you just definitionally cast those violent actors who don’t fit into the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy (or better yet dismiss their actions as legitimate) and wrap it up with a bow.
No side I’ve been on has been ‘always clean.’ I might, on balance, pick that side. Nonetheless, I’m fully aware that there are bad people in every community and every ideological system. All of my own included.
All that aside, it seems that most people who commit this sort of violence are simply unstable. But even unstable people react to the mood around them. If that mood is fear of a President you hate getting killed, then they are less likely to get killed.
There will be no popular mood seeking to replace Trump with Vance – or Biden with Harris. This will enhance the safety of both.
Gee, I already liked him. Now you’re locking in my support.
I wasn’t saying our side is always clean. We have some violence. I was referring specifically to assassinations (or attempts). As Anne Coulter once pointed out to a hostile journalist, “all assassinations in the U.S. were carried out be either democrats or communists.” Perhaps there has been one perpetrated by a conservative or a republican, but off the top of my head I cannot think of one.
Every presidential assassination or attempt has been against a Republican except JFK — who was killed by a commie. Apparently he wasn’t left enough.
There is nothing on the scale of leftwing violence on the right in America. Even J6, while disturbing and tragic, doesn’t compare to the Summer of Love. We also don’t have outspoken anti-Semites sitting in Congress.
John Wilkes Booth.
Not my kind of conservative, to be sure. But slices of modern conservative life would identify with aspects of what he believed. Perhaps states rights? Anti-immigration? Traditional values? The American against the internationalists? Government support for the working man?
Of course, almost no conservatives would identify with his position on slavery. Nonetheless, he could be considered both the grandfather of American political violence and a conservative.
More recently, Dan White was a Democrat (you probably couldn’t win a seat in SF any other way) – but also “defender of the home, the family and religious life against homosexuals, pot smokers and cynics.”
Maybe not the norm, but not unheard of. As we enter what seems to be a cycle of political violence, I expect crazies who have a hodgepodge of beliefs that could be categorized in different ways will rise from the woodwork.
I dunno
I doubt Vance understands the significance of time. Nor will he realize what can be unburdened by what has been. Quite frankly some of his positions makes me think he just fell out of a coconut tree.