Republicans could be overlooking a potentially devastating problem with JD Vance [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

07-17-2024, 09:17 PM

Business Insider article. Complete with exaggerating header. Not sure "devastating" is warranted. I DO see a problem with Vance as far as looking for votes/support. His appeal isn't widespread.
Republicans could be overlooking a potentially devastating problem with JD Vance (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-could-be-overlooking-a-potentially-devastating-problem-with-jd-vance/ar-BB1q8xX8?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6e6e2994ac4e469baf7d2305075ca6ea&ei=39)

Populism is always a horrible choice.

I still shake my head at the idea that Trump ...and now this guy Vance, are "populist".
Unless populist means TALKING about things that concern the middle class
+ tariffs and a little less war.

Because frankly, that's all i see as very distinctive of Trump & Vance.
Trump is talking about making Jamie Dimon Treasury secretary .. not very populist.
All of his cabinet post last time around were very establishment... I can't think of one that was really populist or libertarian or even paleo-conservative. Maybe Ben Carson.

From Social policies to economic policies to foriegn policy, other than a few supposedly UNthinkable tariffs and a lil LESS spending overseas & less all out War overseas, the policies are very moderate.
What's so populist about Trump & Vance? Other than the rhetorical veneer.

From my own political position on things Trump and Vance are practically RINOs.
My POV is Very America 1st, Social Conservative & Constitutional. "conservative"
And if Tariffs, anti-monopoly, and Less to NO wars = "Populist", then I'll take it.
Trump's NO Where CLOSE to being as "extreme right" as me.
& I suspect he's no where as conservative or "populist" as many of his most rabid supporters... or even many Never-Trump detractors.

...
...
BTW I was thinking about something related the other day.
I'm in my 60's & I know people in their 20's who are conservativeISH.
But It hit me as I was talking to them that they have NO history, on the federal level, other than Trump as a representative of what it is to be "conservative". Trump, Rubio, Lindsey Graham, MTG, Thomas Massie, Clarence Thomas. For popular non-politicians they've got Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Preger U. & Matt Walsh.

But what exactly IS a conservative position? most 'rank & file' seem to have their own ideas.
In my lifetime, as far as elected officials are concerned, Reagan was the only one I thought TALKED like a real conservative. But he did NOT always move like one.
There's been NO time in my life when even a BLOCK of politicians moved seriously in a "conservative" "Reagan" "Goldwater" "Buckley" or even a Rush Limbaugh way. (maybe a balanced budget during Gingrich but is that the height of conservatism, 1 working budget?)

I'm not talking about "perfection", btw conservatism is not perfect so.
But anyway.
Part of why i said all that is to say that the complaints about Vance as 'less than' or 'other than' conservative or that he's populist sound weird to me since the terms don't have much of a fixed meaning today... if they ever had practically..."real world".
Everyone seems to be looking at the "what they LIKE", or "Don't like" about what a politician has said or done.

Trying to fix a negative political label on Vance and saying that's "bad" seems mistaken, if not disingenuous.

Makes it's easy to dismiss a person wholesale, but there's not much more substance to it than the left's calling someone "racist" because they disagree on some issues.

Black Diamond

07-17-2024, 11:04 PM

Strategically i don't agree with having the veep candidate be a carbon copy of the potus candidate

fj1200

07-18-2024, 08:30 AM

Strategically i don't agree with having the veep candidate be a carbon copy of the potus candidate

He brings nothing to the ticket that someone else doesn't bring better. :cough: Tim Scott :cough: He underperformed Republicans when he won his seat so barely delivers OH that trump didn't lose in '16 or '20. He does do a great job of locking up the middle aged white guy vote. :cool: :rolleyes:

fj1200

07-18-2024, 08:37 AM

I still shake my head at the idea that Trump ...and now this guy Vance, are "populist".
Unless populist means TALKING about things that concern the middle class
+ tariffs and a little less war.

Because frankly, that's all i see as very distinctive of Trump & Vance.
Trump is talking about making Jamie Dimon Treasury secretary .. not very populist.
All of his cabinet post last time around were very establishment... I can't think of one that was really populist or libertarian or even paleo-conservative. Maybe Ben Carson.

From Social policies to economic policies to foriegn policy, other than a few supposedly UNthinkable tariffs and a lil LESS spending overseas & less all out War overseas, the policies are very moderate.
What's so populist about Trump & Vance? Other than the rhetorical veneer.

From my own political position on things Trump and Vance are practically RINOs.
My POV is Very America 1st, Social Conservative & Constitutional. "conservative"
And if Tariffs, anti-monopoly, and Less to NO wars = "Populist", then I'll take it.
Trump's NO Where CLOSE to being as "extreme right" as me.
& I suspect he's no where as conservative or "populist" as many of his most rabid supporters... or even many Never-Trump detractors.

...
...
BTW I was thinking about something related the other day.
I'm in my 60's & I know people in their 20's who are conservativeISH.
But It hit me as I was talking to them that they have NO history, on the federal level, other than Trump as a representative of what it is to be "conservative". Trump, Rubio, Lindsey Graham, MTG, Thomas Massie, Clarence Thomas. For popular non-politicians they've got Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Preger U. & Matt Walsh.

But what exactly IS a conservative position? most 'rank & file' seem to have their own ideas.
In my lifetime, as far as elected officials are concerned, Reagan was the only one I thought TALKED like a real conservative. But he did NOT always move like one.
There's been NO time in my life when even a BLOCK of politicians moved seriously in a "conservative" "Reagan" "Goldwater" "Buckley" or even a Rush Limbaugh way. (maybe a balanced budget during Gingrich but is that the height of conservatism, 1 working budget?)

I'm not talking about "perfection", btw conservatism is not perfect so.
But anyway.
Part of why i said all that is to say that the complaints about Vance as 'less than' or 'other than' conservative or that he's populist sound weird to me since the terms don't have much of a fixed meaning today... if they ever had practically..."real world".
Everyone seems to be looking at the "what they LIKE", or "Don't like" about what a politician has said or done.

Trying to fix a negative political label on Vance and saying that's "bad" seems mistaken, if not disingenuous.

Makes it's easy to dismiss a person wholesale, but there's not much more substance to it than the left's calling someone "racist" because they disagree on some issues.

Everything is on a scale here. Is small-government, Constitution, free-markets, liberty, etc. the first go-to for them? No for trump and not totally sure about Vance but I'm not hopeful given his fealty to trump. If people think trump is conservative then I weep for the future of conservatism. If you want to discuss whether particular issues are populist, or lean populist, then there's a thread for that.

Gunny

07-18-2024, 09:28 AM

I still shake my head at the idea that Trump ...and now this guy Vance, are "populist".
Unless populist means TALKING about things that concern the middle class
+ tariffs and a little less war.

Because frankly, that's all i see as very distinctive of Trump & Vance.
Trump is talking about making Jamie Dimon Treasury secretary .. not very populist.
All of his cabinet post last time around were very establishment... I can't think of one that was really populist or libertarian or even paleo-conservative. Maybe Ben Carson.

From Social policies to economic policies to foriegn policy, other than a few supposedly UNthinkable tariffs and a lil LESS spending overseas & less all out War overseas, the policies are very moderate.
What's so populist about Trump & Vance? Other than the rhetorical veneer.

From my own political position on things Trump and Vance are practically RINOs.
My POV is Very America 1st, Social Conservative & Constitutional. "conservative"
And if Tariffs, anti-monopoly, and Less to NO wars = "Populist", then I'll take it.
Trump's NO Where CLOSE to being as "extreme right" as me.
& I suspect he's no where as conservative or "populist" as many of his most rabid supporters... or even many Never-Trump detractors.

...
...
BTW I was thinking about something related the other day.
I'm in my 60's & I know people in their 20's who are conservativeISH.
But It hit me as I was talking to them that they have NO history, on the federal level, other than Trump as a representative of what it is to be "conservative". Trump, Rubio, Lindsey Graham, MTG, Thomas Massie, Clarence Thomas. For popular non-politicians they've got Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Preger U. & Matt Walsh.

But what exactly IS a conservative position? most 'rank & file' seem to have their own ideas.
In my lifetime, as far as elected officials are concerned, Reagan was the only one I thought TALKED like a real conservative. But he did NOT always move like one.
There's been NO time in my life when even a BLOCK of politicians moved seriously in a "conservative" "Reagan" "Goldwater" "Buckley" or even a Rush Limbaugh way. (maybe a balanced budget during Gingrich but is that the height of conservatism, 1 working budget?)

I'm not talking about "perfection", btw conservatism is not perfect so.
But anyway.
Part of why i said all that is to say that the complaints about Vance as 'less than' or 'other than' conservative or that he's populist sound weird to me since the terms don't have much of a fixed meaning today... if they ever had practically..."real world".
Everyone seems to be looking at the "what they LIKE", or "Don't like" about what a politician has said or done.

Trying to fix a negative political label on Vance and saying that's "bad" seems mistaken, if not disingenuous.

Makes it's easy to dismiss a person wholesale, but there's not much more substance to it than the left's calling someone "racist" because they disagree on some issues.Because you haven't read the thread on populism that appears to not want to die where populism has been hashed and rehashed and explained to death, complete with links. It isn't that it isn't there. It's that you don't want to hear what's being said.

fj1200

07-18-2024, 09:58 AM

Because you haven't read the thread on populism that appears to not want to die where populism has been hashed and rehashed and explained to death, complete with links. It isn't that it isn't there. It's that you don't want to hear what's being said.

Well I, for one, think it needs to be hashed and rehashed to death. :poke:

Unless populist means TALKING about things that concern the middle class...

I've been thinking about what populist means vs. conservative in this context and I think I've come up with something...
Conservative is to Fact as Populism is to Truth.
One could possibly mean Conservative as Classical Liberal which is easily definable, i.e. Fact. Populism is not easily definable and more so on what people define as their Truth (which in postmodernist thought is dependent on someone's viewpoint and not fact).

Tariffs sound good. Nobody could be for monopolies right? Let's just build a wall. Balance Budget Amendment duh! Jamie Dimon coooouuuld be populist depending on the why. Because he's a stable currency guy? Not populist. Because trump knows him and people see his name in the news? Populist. But I digress... I think that I might be in agreement with a Populist but many times it depends on the why. Does it conform to Classical Liberalism or does it sound good?

revelarts

07-18-2024, 11:28 AM

.... Does it conform to Classical Liberalism or does it sound good?

Do you really think you can say, with any assurance, that the FACTUAL reason Reagan or Bush or Chenney or fill-in-th-blank "conservative" did anything was because of an ideological commitment to "classical liberalism"?

And wasn't FACTUALLY based on some more pragmatic or political aims?
Seriously?

How are going to assess their "FACTUAL" WHYs?
By their public statements? By their votes?

Seem to me if the politicians are transitory anyway, wouldn't the policies they get implemented that are INLINE with "classical liberalism" be more important that the supposed rhetorical "WHY" someone does or does not have for them.

I'd loved to see these ideologically committed "classical liberals", "Small govt Conservatives", "free market conservatives" in action for the past 40+ years.
Please name a few that deserves REAL support more than those who Vote the same way but with less PURE ideological street cred.

But sure, I'd rather see a Thomas Massie type in congress rather than an Archie Bunker who has the exact the same voting record.

But i'm not going to pretend that many/most Right leaning politicians are primarily ideologically committed to "classical liberalism". Seems to me, they mainly USE the POV rhetorically FOR votes. Rather than a template on HOW TO vote.

Seems most are committed establishment conservatives. or "pragmatic" conservatives. ideology is fine and all but "real world" we gotta get votes!
Using populist rhetoric or classical liberal rhetoric or whatever the big donors want.

fj1200

07-18-2024, 11:41 AM

Do you really think you can say, with any assurance, that the FACTUAL reason Reagan or Bush or Chenney or fill-in-th-blank "conservative" did anything was because of an ideological commitment to "classical liberalism"?

And wasn't FACTUALLY based on some more pragmatic or political aims?
Seriously?

How are going to assess their "FACTUAL" WHYs?
By their public statements? By their votes?

Seem to me if the politicians are transitory anyway, wouldn't the policies they get implemented that are INLINE with "classical liberalism" be more important that the supposed rhetorical "WHY" someone does or does not have for them.

I'd loved to see these ideologically committed "classical liberals", "Small govt Conservatives", "free market conservatives" in action for the past 40+ years.
Please name a few that deserves REAL support more than those who Vote the same way but with less PURE ideological street cred.

But sure, I'd rather see a Thomas Massie type in congress rather than an Archie Bunker who has the exact the same voting record.

But i'm not going to pretend that many/most Right leaning politicians are primarily ideologically committed to "classical liberalism". Seems to me, they mainly USE the POV rhetorically FOR votes. Rather than a template on HOW TO vote.

Seems most are committed establishment conservatives. or "pragmatic" conservatives. ideology is fine and all but "real world" we gotta get votes!
Using populist rhetoric or classical liberal rhetoric or whatever the big donors want.

Reagan? Yes. Bush I? He was never committed. Bush II? Moreso than Bush I? Cheney? Wasn't ever POTUS or is he just a convenient boogey man? I've never claimed that anybody was all one or all the other like you seem to want to find; people are human and therefore fallible. I'll only say that conservatism is better than populism. If someone uses populism to get elected (or a populist gets elected) and stumbles into some conservatism I'll take it. If someone uses populism to get elected (or a populist gets elected) and stumbles the other way I won't be surprised.

Gunny

07-18-2024, 02:09 PM

Well I, for one, think it needs to be hashed and rehashed to death. :poke:

I've been thinking about what populist means vs. conservative in this context and I think I've come up with something...
Conservative is to Fact as Populism is to Truth.
One could possibly mean Conservative as Classical Liberal which is easily definable, i.e. Fact. Populism is not easily definable and more so on what people define as their Truth (which in postmodernist thought is dependent on someone's viewpoint and not fact).

Tariffs sound good. Nobody could be for monopolies right? Let's just build a wall. Balance Budget Amendment duh! Jamie Dimon coooouuuld be populist depending on the why. Because he's a stable currency guy? Not populist. Because trump knows him and people see his name in the news? Populist. But I digress... I think that I might be in agreement with a Populist but many times it depends on the why. Does it conform to Classical Liberalism or does it sound good?
Fact. Populism is not easily definable and more so on what people define as their Truth (which in postmodernist thought is dependent on someone's viewpoint and not fact).

That's the problem I have with the word. By definition, it can be good or bad or anywhere in between. The word doesn't lend itself well to generalization. It needs specifics to define it.

fj1200

07-18-2024, 05:20 PM

Fact. Populism is not easily definable and more so on what people define as their Truth (which in postmodernist thought is dependent on someone's viewpoint and not fact).

That's the problem I have with the word. By definition, it can be good or bad or anywhere in between. The word doesn't lend itself well to generalization. It needs specifics to define it.

That's why there's a thread. wink wink

I think it's fairly easy to define with issues that appeal to the populace, the "little guy," yada yada yada... But the particular issues are harder to define as what happens to be appealing this election cycle. I think that is why populism is not really a long-term movement. You have to constantly pivot and shift and probably means a different target this time around especially if the target of the populist movement was "defeated" and your lot in life hasn't changed. It's gotta be somebodies fault.

Gunny

07-19-2024, 10:06 AM

That's why there's a thread. wink wink

I think it's fairly easy to define with issues that appeal to the populace, the "little guy," yada yada yada... But the particular issues are harder to define as what happens to be appealing this election cycle. I think that is why populism is not really a long-term movement. You have to constantly pivot and shift and probably means a different target this time around especially if the target of the populist movement was "defeated" and your lot in life hasn't changed. It's gotta be somebodies fault.

I get that. Somewhere in that thread should be a few links I posted when I was going all-in trying to nail down a specific definition. There is only a general one. as previously stated, it requires specifics. For the purposes of this discussion on this board, I think we can narrow it down to Trump and his followers. Unlike it has been, they are currently defining themselves as populist, more and more.

IIRC, a group of people following a person and his appeal to their concerns as a means of getting their support. At this point I am going to state I believe still this all about Trump and his ego first; thus, the populist rub. Although, I have to note he has shifted his position a bit, and is at least putting on the appearance of trying to do what is best for the country. Jury's out on whether or not I'm buying that shit. He's got a lot of damage to undo with me.

One might think that bullet knocked some of the piss and vinegar out of him. On the other hand, he's been rather low-key (for him) since the debate and allowing the Dems to eat their own.

No matter what, he's not a conservative in the generally accepted meaning of the term as far as I'm concerned. I'd say he's more neo-liberal than anything else. His bottom line in everything equates to dollars and profit.

revelarts

07-19-2024, 10:55 AM

... Jamie Dimon coooouuuld be populist depending on the why. Because he's a stable currency guy? Not populist. Because trump knows him and people see his name in the news? Populist. But I digress......
to the Digression
FYI
More than folks want to know about Jamie Dimon.

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2023/03/investigative-series/the-rise-of-jamie-dimon/

fj1200

07-19-2024, 12:12 PM

to the Digression
FYI
More than folks want to know about Jamie Dimon.

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2023/03/investigative-series/the-rise-of-jamie-dimon/

If you dig deep enough you find what you want.

revelarts

07-19-2024, 01:02 PM

If you dig deep enough you find what you want.
What i want to find is honest American Businessmen, providing valuable services to customers equally & fairly, in an open uncaptured & non-crony controlled market.

fj1200

07-19-2024, 03:09 PM

What i want to find is honest American Businessmen, providing valuable services to customers equally & fairly, in an open uncaptured & non-crony controlled market.

Good luck.

revelarts

07-19-2024, 04:33 PM

Good luck.
but you said
"If you dig deep enough you find what you want."

fj1200

07-19-2024, 10:05 PM

but you said
"If you dig deep enough you find what you want."

Exactly. Your perfect is the enemy of the good.

revelarts

07-20-2024, 10:03 AM

Exactly. Your perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not having perfection as an ideal to keep in mind is the enemy of the Good.
In basketball how many shots are we trying to make?
In construction of a home how far below perfection in the plans is OK?
Is a target of zero thefts an enemy of the good?

A low bar is the enemy of everything.

fj1200

07-25-2024, 08:45 AM

Not having perfection as an ideal to keep in mind is the enemy of the Good.
In basketball how many shots are we trying to make?
In construction of a home how far below perfection in the plans is OK?
Is a target of zero thefts an enemy of the good?

A low bar is the enemy of everything.

The problem that you apparently can't see is that you keep digging until you find what isn't really there but that you can infer. And then you eliminate because of your inference.

You seek perfection in man which is clearly impossible. Even man found imperfection in the Son of Man.

revelarts

07-25-2024, 09:03 AM

The problem that you apparently can't see is that you keep digging until you find what isn't really there but that you can infer. And then you eliminate because of your inference.

You seek perfection in man which is clearly impossible. Even man found imperfection in the Son of Man.

hmm, I think the problem is that you just want to find imperfections in my pov and post no matter what I say.
Seems you don't want to dig (except to try and show that I'm wrong) & you don't want to see what's there if I point it out.

Gunny

07-25-2024, 09:34 AM

fj1200

07-25-2024, 03:22 PM

hmm, I think the problem is that you just want to find imperfections in my pov and post no matter what I say.
Seems you don't want to dig (except to try and show that I'm wrong) & you don't want to see what's there if I point it out.

You don't reply when I find obvious errors so what more do I need to do? You don't reply when I note a break down in logic so what more do I need to do? I ask about your stance on monopolies and you don't reply so what more do I need to do? On what basis would I have to inquire about your POV if I didn't dig in the first place?

You post some expose on Jamie Dimon (which you may or may not lend credence to but is typical of the roots of your positions) which goes back so far with so many links of possible these things and possible those things that it ultimately bears no relationship to reality. People post utter crap and you don't question it.

revelarts

07-26-2024, 09:55 AM

You don't reply when I find obvious errors so what more do I need to do?
Please point me to my obvious errors where I have yet to reply OTHER than the Black Rock issue.

You don't reply when I note a break down in logic so what more do I need to do?

Please link me to my break downs in logic that you've corrected that I have not replied to, or admitted, so that I might deal with that pile.

I ask about your stance on monopolies and you don't reply so what more do I need to do?
I've made many statements on my view of monopolies, not sure how you've forgotten them.
I've posted plenty on that, All you've done is disagreed with my stance.
Seems that you love big biz more than any principals or ideals (but that's not rando populist , because it favors corporations rather than people ..which is GOOD in your mind it seems. It's "conservative".) . If I understand your stance, You seem to think that monopolies will work themselves out or be a an overall good. And NO regulations are better than any.
we disagree.

On what basis would I have to inquire about your POV if I didn't dig in the first place?
Here's the thing FJ, If you'd AGREE with the portions that i've posted that are correct or have merit before you go into bad "fact checking" to see if I falsely called a "paper" a "study", and digging around a for a series of other similar points I supposedly misrepresented, that you want to hang your refutations on, it might not be so bad.
But the nitpicking just comes across as being contrarian for contrarian sake. The reply of someone who just wants someone else to be wrong, but can't really refute the MAIN points well.

I point out globalist words & actions and you say they're dead, so it doesn't matter.
I point out current people's words & actions you claim "it's a meme!", & immediately assert/assume it's not true they didn't say it.
c'mon.

You post some expose on Jamie Dimon (which you may or may not lend credence to but is typical of the roots of your positions) which goes back so far with so many links of possible these things and possible those things that it ultimately bears no relationship to reality. People post utter crap and you don't question it.

I post a meme with short facts showing the history of the vaccine schedule and you & immediately assert it's not relevant because "it's a meme".
I post links to a long detail history of Dimon to make the point that Trump is not looking at "populist" to fill cabinet post. The info at the link shows, at the LEAST, that Dimon is no "populist", and you say "it may or may not lend credence", "no relation to reality". sheeesh.

The telling part is that you say it's "typical of the roots of your positions".
the questions on the table ARE NOT, what you THINK "the roots of my positions" are FJ.
Why are you even going there?!

IS Jamie Dimon a Populist FJ? Just Agree & say NO, He is NOT a populist.
So, Trump picking him is NOT a POPULIST move.
It's a SIMPLE CLEAR POINT. That's not hard to see. or admit for an honest player.
Or If you think Dimon IS a Populist option or that other picks are, then back it up or point them out.
Don't go of on some tangent saying that what I've post has no relation to reality or is irrelevant because you don't like it as a meme or a video or it's has TOO MUCH info thats not exactly relevant to the point.

Just be honest dude.
And remember, I never try to dismiss your points with BS like that.

But hey if that's the only way you can think of to approach or refute the subjects on the table,
then, ok, you do you FJ.
Just know it's not striking me as honest or content based, comes across more like you just want to disagree with some part of what i said.

But maybe it's because you don't like the ROOTS of my positions. WTH?

revelarts

07-26-2024, 10:24 AM

the Sky is Blue.
here's a picture, and a cool LONG science article on why the sky is blue.

the sky is black every night. Posting inaccurate information again I see. hmmm? the picture is a MEME so it's false.
the article was way too long and went off on tangents and the writer is not a Ph.d or specialist in light or the atmosphere. He's just a regular physicist with his main degrees in Chemistry:rolleyes:.
Therefore it may or may not be relevant. plus it's a non-peer-reviewed article. Ever hear of double blind studies? Plus he was on some 2nd rate science show years ago and got fired. Why are you scraping the bottom of the barrel. Never heard of this "science" website either. Do you have some better sources for this "Blue Sky" theory? No videos please, they can be misleading.

...

fj1200

07-26-2024, 01:10 PM

Please point me to my obvious errors where I have yet to reply OTHER than the Black Rock issue.

No. Were you wrong?

Please link me to my break downs in logic that you've corrected that I have not replied to, or admitted, so that I might deal with that pile.

No. I'm not digging into a thousand threads. They're still out there and open.

I've made many statements on my view of monopolies, not sure how you've forgotten them.
I've posted plenty on that, All you've done is disagreed with my stance.
Seems that you love big biz more than any principals or ideals (but that's not rando populist , because it favors corporations rather than people ..which is GOOD in your mind it seems. It's "conservative".) . If I understand your stance, You seem to think that monopolies will work themselves out or be a an overall good. And NO regulations are better than any.
we disagree.

None of that is correct. I think you combine monopoly and oligopoly.

Here's the thing FJ, If you'd AGREE with the portions that i've posted that are correct or have merit before you go into bad "fact checking" to see if I falsely called a "paper" a "study", and digging around a for a series of other similar points I supposedly misrepresented, that you want to hang your refutations on, it might not be so bad.
But the nitpicking just comes across as being contrarian for contrarian sake. The reply of someone who just wants someone else to be wrong, but can't really refute the MAIN points well.

I point out globalist words & actions and you say they're dead, so it doesn't matter.
I point out current people's words & actions you claim "it's a meme!", & immediately assert/assume it's not true they didn't say it.
c'mon.

The problem IMO is that you hang so much of your truth on an incorrect interpretation of facts while I might be able to agree on particular facts it's your truth that falls apart.

I post a meme with short facts showing the history of the vaccine schedule and you & immediately assert it's not relevant because "it's a meme".
I post links to a long detail history of Dimon to make the point that Trump is not looking at "populist" to fill cabinet post. The info at the link shows, at the LEAST, that Dimon is no "populist", and you say "it may or may not lend credence", "no relation to reality". sheeesh.

The telling part is that you say it's "typical of the roots of your positions".
the questions on the table ARE NOT, what you THINK "the roots of my positions" are FJ.
Why are you even going there?!

IS Jamie Dimon a Populist FJ? Just Agree & say NO, He is NOT a populist.
So, Trump picking him is NOT a POPULIST move.
It's a SIMPLE CLEAR POINT. That's not hard to see. or admit for an honest player.
Or If you think Dimon IS a Populist option or that other picks are, then back it up or point them out.
Don't go of on some tangent saying that what I've post has no relation to reality or is irrelevant because you don't like it as a meme or a video or it's has TOO MUCH info thats not exactly relevant to the point.

Just be honest dude.
And remember, I never try to dismiss your points with BS like that.

But hey if that's the only way you can think of to approach or refute the subjects on the table,
then, ok, you do you FJ.
Just know it's not striking me as honest or content based, comes across more like you just want to disagree with some part of what i said.

But maybe it's because you don't like the ROOTS of my positions. WTH?

Memes are not relevant. They are a sad representation of an argument. And I'm going there because that is what this has devolved into. The point that I'm making is that the link is typical of what you present.

The question about is Dimon a populist is the wrong question. It's not whether he's a populist or not (which I don't think Dimon is) it's whether populist trump might choose him. When the below is the brilliance coming from trump then I'm not going to waste time on this particular issue.

CNN —
Former President Donald Trump said in a recent interview he would consider nominating JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon as Treasury Secretary, but on Tuesday said he doesn’t know who said that or where that came from.
In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek published earlier this month, Trump said, “I have a lot of respect for Jamie Dimon.” He was then asked whether Dimon might be a future Trump administration Treasury secretary.
“He is somebody that I would consider, sure,” Trump said, according to the transcript posted online by Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-trump-interview-transcript/?embedded-checkout=true).
But on Tuesday, Trump posted (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112836501862027675) on Truth Social, “I don’t know who said it, or where it came from, perhaps the Radical Left, but I never discussed, or thought of, Jamie Dimon or Larry Fink for Secretary of the Treasury.”
Trump didn’t mention considering Fink, who is the CEO of BlackRock, in the Bloomberg interview.
Trump’s comments on Dimon in the Bloomberg interview were a sharp departure from his previous posture on the JPMorgan chief executive. Trump bashed Dimon in November as a “Highly overrated Globalist” in a Truth Social Post after Dimon praised Nikki Haley, who was at the time still running for president in the GOP primary. But Dimon then said earlier this year he thought Trump was right about key issues and that bashing his “Make America Great Again” movement would hurt President Joe Biden.

It's what populists do, they meander aimlessly because they have no core.

revelarts

07-26-2024, 06:03 PM

No.
Were you wrong?
So you really can't point out any others.
Probably.
.

No. I'm not digging into a thousand threads. They're still out there and open.

Can you find me 2 out of the "thousands" of threads.
Should be easy. Since there are thousands.

None of that is correct. I think you combine monopoly and oligopoly.
monopoly leads to/becomes oligopoly.
At least over the aspects of life where the particular monopoly is in control.

The problem IMO is that you hang so much of your truth on an incorrect interpretation of facts while I might be able to agree on particular facts it's your truth that falls apart.

look, can we please stop with this BS truth verses facts stuff.
It's false postmodern philosophy. The same philosophy that is in fact at the root of the gender horror show we have nowadays.
There is no "Your Truth" vs "Facts".
There are Facts/Truth,
There's honest or dishonest views of the of Facts/Truth
and there's opinions about the importance, applications & implications of Truth/Facts.
And those last items have MORE or LESS factual evidence that points in ONE direction or another.
It's never exactly neutral. Even if there's NOT ENOUGH facts to work with.

Reality doesn't play the "your truth" game.
People play it. and it harms everyone.

"thou shalt not commit false witness"
(Acting on Falsehoods leads to problems. God made our universal reality to work best for us based on our understanding of the Truth.
IMO "speak the truth in love" is one of them most profound life giving lines in the Bible. It sums up best practices for the whole show IMO. The farther we move away from Truth and Love, the worse problems become.)

But look, If you don't agree with my display of the facts, or that they point in certain directions, Fine.
Align them and add to them facts in the way that makes your case, so it shows that it fits reality better.
Don't pretend that i'm playing mind games.
As fixed as i may seem in my positions i am swayed by FACTS/TRUTH.

Debate is a like a good court case, either there's MORE evidence to make a case that ONE person committed a crime than others.
If there's not enough evidence or better evidence for another verdict, then make the case. Don't just say my interpretation is wrong because you don't like it. or 'the root of your position', 'your truth' crap.

Memes are not relevant.

Facts in the form of meme are JUST as relevant as if they weren't in a Meme.
period. you are LYING to say otherwise.
Just say YOU don't like memes.
That's it.
Saying dogs have 4 legs in a meme is STILL the TRUTH.
It's only "sad" & a "devolution"... in your opinion.
facts are facts no matter if they are in a MEME, a VIDEO, An ARTICLE, a STUDY, a Song, a T shirt, an Unknown Website, even out of the mouths of prostitutes, politicians or crackpots.
The sources and formats are important to various degrees, but the TRUTH is what reality turns on.
If you want to refute the FACTS with me, deal with the facts. because saying you don't like the format DOES NOT move my view of the facts or the facts AT ALL.
But hey, If those comments are for the benefit of others, or yourself, fine, no problem.

The question about is Dimon a populist is the wrong question. It's not whether he's a populist or not (which I don't think Dimon is) it's whether populist trump might choose him. When the below is the brilliance coming from trump then I'm not going to waste time on this particular issue.

Trump's jibber jaber
It's what populists do, they meander aimlessly because they have no core.
Ok, very cool, seriously. Your part of the reply here quoting Trumps wishy washy jiber jabber is a GREAT reply to my point.
There's CONTENT about what Trump said concerning Dimon, It shows FACTUALLY he's either not speaking sincerely, or even incoherently.
So yes, based on the Counter EVIDENCE you've presented it's makes sense to make the INTERPRETATION of the FACTS that POINT TO the idea that Trumps is a directionless populist.

That's the kind of honest reply i can admit is valid and it takes the sting out of my attempted Dimon point.
Rather than nonsense about the "root of your positions" & your link "may or may not" be relevant "outside of reality" "it's a meme" crap.

fj1200

07-27-2024, 09:19 AM

So you really can't point out any others.
Probably.

You won't cop to one why find others.

Can you find me 2 out of the "thousands" of threads.
Should be easy. Since there are thousands.

monopoly leads to/becomes oligopoly.
At least over the aspects of life where the particular monopoly is in control.

They have specific definitions with different solutions based on particulars. You haven't correctly stated anything about my position on monopolies and your solutions to, and identification of, market concentration are poorly thought out. See other thread.

look, can we please stop with this BS truth verses facts stuff.
It's false postmodern philosophy. The same philosophy that is in fact at the root of the gender horror show we have nowadays.
There is no "Your Truth" vs "Facts".
There are Facts/Truth,
There's honest or dishonest views of the of Facts/Truth
and there's opinions about the importance, applications & implications of Truth/Facts.
And those last items have MORE or LESS factual evidence that points in ONE direction or another.
It's never exactly neutral. Even if there's NOT ENOUGH facts to work with.

Reality doesn't play the "your truth" game.
People play it. and it harms everyone.

"thou shalt not commit false witness"
(Acting on Falsehoods leads to problems. God made our universal reality to work best for us based on our understanding of the Truth.
IMO "speak the truth in love" is one of them most profound life giving lines in the Bible. It sums up best practices for the whole show IMO. The farther we move away from Truth and Love, the worse problems become.)

But look, If you don't agree with my display of the facts, or that they point in certain directions, Fine.
Align them and add to them facts in the way that makes your case, so it shows that it fits reality better.
Don't pretend that i'm playing mind games.
As fixed as i may seem in my positions i am swayed by FACTS/TRUTH.

Debate is a like a good court case, either there's MORE evidence to make a case that ONE person committed a crime than others.
If there's not enough evidence or better evidence for another verdict, then make the case. Don't just say my interpretation is wrong because you don't like it. or 'the root of your position', 'your truth' crap.

Facts in the form of meme are JUST as relevant as if they weren't in a Meme.
period. you are LYING to say otherwise.
Just say YOU don't like memes.
That's it.
Saying dogs have 4 legs in a meme is STILL the TRUTH.
It's only "sad" & a "devolution"... in your opinion.
facts are facts no matter if they are in a MEME, a VIDEO, An ARTICLE, a STUDY, a Song, a T shirt, an Unknown Website, even out of the mouths of prostitutes, politicians or crackpots.
The sources and formats are important to various degrees, but the TRUTH is what reality turns on.
If you want to refute the FACTS with me, deal with the facts. because saying you don't like the format DOES NOT move my view of the facts or the facts AT ALL.
But hey, If those comments are for the benefit of others, or yourself, fine, no problem.

I think fact vs truth is stupid but it explains the world that we are in these days. If you are going to take a fact pattern and interpret those facts then you are attempting to find truth. If those facts are merely conjecture as it relates to the evidence then the derived truth is false. I don't want my truth to be based on conjecture.

Ok, very cool, seriously. Your part of the reply here quoting Trumps wishy washy jiber jabber is a GREAT reply to my point.
There's CONTENT about what Trump said concerning Dimon, It shows FACTUALLY he's either not speaking sincerely, or even incoherently.
So yes, based on the Counter EVIDENCE you've presented it's makes sense to make the INTERPRETATION of the FACTS that POINT TO the idea that Trumps is a directionless populist.

That's the kind of honest reply i can admit is valid and it takes the sting out of my attempted Dimon point.
Rather than nonsense about the "root of your positions" & your link "may or may not" be relevant "outside of reality" "it's a meme" crap.

Apparently I needed to state it differently because I never said it was about Dimon; it was always about trump and his incoherence/insincerity. I think I now realize why I was wrong about trump choosing Scott for VP. A rational actor looking to win an election would have chosen Scott to appeal to other voting blocs; Black, conservative, etc. I don't think anyone ever tagged trump and populists as a rational actors.

Kathianne

07-27-2024, 09:29 AM

You won't cop to one why find others.

They have specific definitions with different solutions based on particulars. You haven't correctly stated anything about my position on monopolies and your solutions to, and identification of, market concentration are poorly thought out. See other thread.

I think fact vs truth is stupid but it explains the world that we are in these days. If you are going to take a fact pattern and interpret those facts then you are attempting to find truth. If those facts are merely conjecture as it relates to the evidence then the derived truth is false. I don't want my truth to be based on conjecture.

Apparently I needed to state it differently because I never said it was about Dimon; it was always about trump and his incoherence/insincerity. I think I now realize why I was wrong about trump choosing Scott for VP. A rational actor looking to win an election would have chosen Scott to appeal to other voting blocs; Black, conservative, etc. I don't think anyone ever tagged trump and populists as a rational actors.

I'm not jumping into this whole discussion; however I do want to jump into the last bit on VP choice. I do hope Trump makes clear to Vance that they need to stay on point regarding policies and not attack on sex or race or whatever. 'Childless cat lady' is needlessly alienating many, just a very poor example of judgement.

fj1200

07-27-2024, 09:31 AM

I'm not jumping into this whole discussion; however I do want to jump into the last bit on VP choice. I do hope Trump makes clear to Vance that they need to stay on point regarding policies and not attack on sex or race or whatever. 'Childless cat lady' is needlessly alienating many, just a very poor example of judgement.

Hopefully someone keeps both their feet to the fire on that. Wasn't the cat lady thing from dated remarks?

Kathianne

07-27-2024, 09:33 AM

another:

Now I have faith that Kamala and whomever she picks will likely self-destruct, but JD is alienating many for no good reason. Do they not realize they need to attract more, not get rid of those they consider unworthy?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jd-vance-couch-story-finally-makes-appearance-on-fox

J.D. Vance ‘Couch’ Story Finally Makes Appearance on FoxAWKWARD
The mention might have been brief, but the uncomfortable moment spoke volumes.

William Vaillancourt
William Vaillancourt
Updated Jul. 27, 2024 3:12AM EDT / Published Jul. 26, 2024 8:51PM EDT
Fox News

The embarrassing, baseless gossip that Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance had sex with a couch was alluded to in passing on Fox News Friday night for the first time, making for a bit of an amusing—if not awkward—moment on the right-wing channel.

Vance’s rollout as Donald Trump’s running mate has been largely viewed as less than ideal, thanks in part to his controversial comments about women and voting. In addition, scores of memes have imagined Vance’s relationship with furniture, as a result of a joke post on X from July 15 which claimed to quote Vance’s memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, but was simply made up. Since the post gained traction, the Associated Press fact-checked it as false on Wednesday, but, to compound the issue for Vance, removed the fact check soon after, saying it “didn’t go through our standard editing process.”

The result: widespread questions—and even more jokes, including from late-night hosts like Stephen Colbert—about what really happened.

Dem Rep. Slyly References J.D. Vance ‘Couches’ Memes on CNN
COULDN’T RESIST
David Gardner
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) leaves a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus about the candidacy of President Joe Biden at the Democratic National Committee on July 9, 2024.
On Fox News’ The Five, the show’s liberal co-host, Jessica Tarlov, made a clear nod to the story while discussing Vice President Kamala Harris’ jumpstart campaign, which has set records for donations and campaign volunteer sign-ups.

“Well, Kennedy,” she told her colleague, “it seems like Republicans are getting a big J.D. Vance—should I say, couch-sized—wake-up call.”

“Did he or didn’t he?” Tarlov wondered moments later, adding that she would think that Vance would prefer “more policing of content” on X due to the flood of memes.

Kennedy chimed in. “Let’s couch that part of the discussion and get on to—,” she joked, before the conversation moved on.

Tarlov’s initial comments marked the first time that the discourse about Vance and couches was mentioned on Fox News, according to a transcript search with media monitoring tool Grabien. By contrast, the subject was first broached on MSNBC two nights before on Alex Wagner Tonight, with two more mentions Friday morning. And on The Source Thursday night, Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) made the first such reference on CNN.

As for whether or not Republicans are getting a “wake-up call,” a Fox News poll released later Friday and covered by Special Report anchor Bret Baier showed a closer race between Harris and Trump in some battleground states than previous polls featuring Joe Biden had indicated.

Kathianne

07-27-2024, 09:34 AM

Hopefully someone keeps both their feet to the fire on that. Wasn't the cat lady thing from dated remarks?
I'm not sure, first chance I've had to look for the reason behind all the memes I'm seeing on social media sites.

Kathianne

07-27-2024, 09:37 AM

Vance's answer:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4794753-vance-childless-cat-ladies-blowback/

Vance defends ‘sarcastic’ ‘childless cat ladies’ remarks amid blowbackby Brett Samuels - 07/26/24 1:05 PM ET

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) on Friday addressed the firestorm brewing around his recently resurfaced remarks that the country was being run by “childless cat ladies,” calling it a “sarcastic comment” and pivoting to attack Democrats as “antifamily.”

“I know the media wants to attack me and wants me to back down on this, Megyn, but the simple point that I made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way,” Vance said on SiriusXM’s “The Megyn Kelly Show,” his first time addressing his 2021 remarks since they were recirculated this week.

“There’s a deeper point here, Megyn. It’s not a criticism of people who don’t have children. I explicitly said in my remarks — despite the fact the media has lied about this — that this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons didn’t have kids,” Vance said. “This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming antifamily and antichildren.”

Vance pointed to support from some liberals for young children to continue to wear masks in the years after the coronavirus pandemic began. He also claimed the Harris campaign has opposed the child tax credit, though Harris as vice president has supported expanding that policy.

“It’s because they have become antifamily and antikid. And I’m proud to stand up for parents. And I hope that parents out there recognize that I’m a guy who wants to fight for you,” Vance said. “I don’t think we should back down from it, Megyn. I think we should be honest about the problem.”

Vance said the government should make it easier for families to have children and that workplaces should be more accommodating to working moms and dads.

Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’
He also told Kelly that he’s not opposed to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for parents having fertility problems, but said “we have to protect the rights of Christian hospitals to operate the way that they want to operate.”

Vance has come under fire in recent days because of comments he made in 2021 when he was campaigning for an Ohio Senate seat. He told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson the country was being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

“It’s just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” Vance said. “And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”

The Ohio senator, who was tapped by former President Trump last week to join the GOP ticket, told Kelly people were too focused on the “sarcasm” of his remarks and not enough on the substance.

In a separate 2021 speech at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Vance said his remarks were not targeting those who couldn’t have kids for biological or medical reasons.

ABC News reported Friday that Vance in a 2021 appearance on “The Charlie Kirk Show” podcast advocated for higher taxes on Americans without children.

Vance’s past comments have been at the center of attacks from Democrats and the Harris campaign, as well as some high-profile celebrities who have taken issue with his remarks.

“All I can say is… Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day,” actress Jennifer Aniston wrote in an Instagram post. “I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.”

Buttigieg, the Transportation secretary, noted in an interview this week that Vance’s comments came after he and his husband, Chasten, had been dealt a setback in their effort to adopt.

“It’s only been 11 days, but voters know the Trump-Vance ticket is running to take America backwards and take away our freedoms – but as Vice President Harris has said, we will not go back,” a Harris campaign spokesperson said Friday.

I understand his POV, but he needs to UNDERSTAND that the Office of the Presidency is to represent all of America, even those that see things very different than the current holders of that office.

Kathianne

07-27-2024, 09:58 AM

Now this IS INTERESTING! Goto site, as I said, nearly all the coverage has been on social media-which is most influential source of news for many 45 and younger.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/27/ap-forced-to-delete-embarrassing-fact-check-about-jd-vance-having-sex-with-a-couch-n2642540

AP Forced to Delete Embarrassing Fact-Check About JD VanceMatt Vespa
Matt Vespa
|
July 27, 2024 7:00 AM

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

It provided for some funny memes, but the story also serves as yet another example of the liberal media going indiscriminately insane trying to find anything to attack Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance. Vance is getting torched by the media, who are attacking him for his socially conservative positions. Yet, one thing the Associated Press fact-checked about the Ohio Republican was this wild story about him having sex with a couch, which some said was mentioned in his book Hillbilly Elegy. It’s not true. It didn’t need a fact check, but the AP team decided to post it anyway to humiliate the Republican vice presidential candidate.

The Associated Press eventually took it down after facing intense criticism, with the outlet admitting that the post did not meet its editorial standards (via NY Post):

The Associated Press is being ridiculed after it pulled down a “fact check” story on an X-rated hoax about Trump running-mate JD Vance involving a couch and a rubber glove, claiming it “didn’t go through [their] standard editing process” before publication.

The article, which was tagged with an authoritative “AP Fact Check” header, was titled “No, JD Vance did not have sex with a couch,” alluding to a fake claim that the Ohio senator described making love to a sofa in graphic detail in his 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.”

The salacious hoax spread like wildfire on social media, reportedly sparked by an X user who tweeted out a description of the alleged lewd act complete with a bogus citation.

Of course, no such passage exists in Vance’s bestseller, “Hillbilly Elegy,” but that didn’t stop the rumor from spreading — with many apparently believing it was true, including comedian and known twit Kathy Griffin.

[…]

The wire service’s rigorous assessment included scanning through a “searchable PDF” of the book for the word “couch” or “couches” — which came up 10 times in total, though never in the context of a sex act.

[…]

“The story, which did not go out on the wire to our customers, didn’t go through our standard editing process. We are looking into how that happened,” an AP spokesperson told The Post.

Author and journalist Noah Rothman slammed the Associated Press as “sleazy” for deleting the article, and for giving the fake claim — which emanated from an anonymous X user with less than 1,800 followers — any oxygen whatsoever.

“Last night, the AP published a ‘fact check’ of utterly unknown nobodies who alleged that JD Vance fornicated a couch, not because anyone believed that but because it introduces that nonsense into the bloodstream. Today, it’s gone. So sleazy.”

Recommended

CNN's Harry Enten and James Carville Throw Some Cold Water on Harris' Candidacy
Matt Vespa
Just ridiculous. Yet, again, some of the reactions were funny. Of all the things the media could use, they chose a hoax. I would hope the Vance camps had a good laugh at this one; the media stepped on a rake on this one.

Gunny

07-27-2024, 10:20 AM

Social media is a very good argument for controls on "free" speech. So is the MSM. At this point, I really don't care about free speech purists wailing and gnashing teeth. There needs to be consequences for just flat lying. I'm not talking about ignorant/stupid opinions either. I'm talking about just making shit up. I' not talking about some lame ass laws that require a note from Christ stating one's reputation has been maligned that'll get through the court about the time we are all reincarnated and living our second lives:rolleyes:

Used to be, you just got your ass kicked. Say what you want, it made people think twice that there was possible retribution. There is little to no accountability for on social media. Might get banned? Sure. That works:rolleyes:

I like the internet/"information age". But jury's out with me where it comes to its value. For any good it does, it does an equal if not more amount of damage.

Kathianne

07-27-2024, 11:40 AM

Hopefully someone keeps both their feet to the fire on that. Wasn't the cat lady thing from dated remarks?

Just found this, FOX gives some context and 'yes' it's from 3 years ago. It still carries the problem of letting people make their own choices with lifestyles. Keep to issues, easy enough with AOC, Kamala, any of the squad:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-senior-campaign-advisor-slams-left-taking-vances-cat-lady-comments-blatantly-out-context

Trump senior campaign advisor slams left: Taking Vance's ‘cat lady’ comments ‘blatantly out of context’'We’re about fighting for the working women of the United States... JD Vance is the perfect representation of that,' LaCivita told Fox News
Gabriel Hays By Gabriel Hays Fox News
Published July 27, 2024 10:53am EDT

JD Vance's 'childless cat ladies' backlash 'blatantly taken out of context': Chris LaCivita
Trump 2024 senior campaign adviser Chris LaCivita discusses the latest JD Vance criticism and President Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 race as Kamala Harris takes center stage on 'The Brian Kilmeade Show.'

Trump 2024 senior campaign advisor Chris LaCivita slammed the left’s new attacks on vice presidential candidate JD Vance for appearing to disparage "childless cat ladies" in the Democratic Party, saying that critics are being "absolutely absurd."

During an episode of Fox News’ "The Brian Kilmeade Show," LaCivita stated that all the noise over Vance’s comments – which he made during an interview three years ago – was overblown and clarified to the radio host that the Trump/Vance campaign is not against "childless women" as the liberal media is saying.

"The fact of the matter is, it’s been blatantly taken out of context," the Trump advisor said during the radio segment that aired on Friday.

JD Vance during Watters interview
GOP Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance has been under fire for an old interview where he slammed "childless cat ladies" in the Democratic Party. (Fox News)

During the 2021 interview, Vance originally stated, "We are effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too."

He then specifically called out Vice President Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as being part of this group in that interview.

This week, the Harris campaign, and various other prominent liberals, including Hillary Clinton, actress Jennifer Aniston and others blasted Vance, accusing him of devaluing women that don’t have children, or can’t have them under normal circumstances.

LaCivita pushed back against the new attack against Vance, suggesting his words were being overblown and suggesting they’re being interpreted in bad faith.

The senior advisor also turned the media’s attacks on Vance here against them. "As a matter of fact, there was a discussion today, where the follow up *– the Democrat follow-up attack is that JD Vance believes that only people with children should get certain tax breaks."

"Well, that’s called the childcare tax credit," he continued, noting, "So now we have the Democrat Party and the Kamala Harris campaign on record as opposing something that has been law for years which is, you know, the childcare tax credit."

LaCivita also slammed the Democratic Party strategy employed to take down the Republican vice-presidential candidate, stating, "Look, we expect this kind of thing. You know, they drag out their has-been actresses of Jennifer Aniston to come out and make these attacks."

"We’re about fighting for the working women of the United States, the forgotten people of the middle class. JD Vance is the perfect representation of that. They know it. It scares the hell out of them… They’re going to peddle in fiction and we’re going to have to deal with it as we go forward."

Kilmeade followed by asking if the Trump campaign is "against childless women," to which LaCivita replied, "No, that’s absurd. It’s absolutely absurd."