mtutiger

I liked the book, but I also think he's also a much different person today than he was when he wrote that book.

When you consider that Trump doesn't have many more years ahead of him, one of the other candidates at least gives a glimmer of hope that there would be some sort of change in tonal direction after he leaves (regardless of how he leaves the stage). With Vance, he's likely to keep the center of the party in right wing nationalism.... win or lose, he'll likely be the favorite in 2028 for the nomination. Politically he's a weak peak, but it really doesn't matter if Trump wins IMO.

My biggest thing is the demonstrated ability and desire to just say and do anything for power.... I remember reading his book in 2016/2017 timeframe and he sounded nothing like the guy he is today. He just shed the persona altogether and shapeshifted into what he is today because he's thirsty for power. It doesn't really matter what side of the political spectrum, voters tend to notice people like that... a lot of Ohioans notice it from my understanding as well. Ultimately the VP pick brings very little to any ticket and generally doesn't change votes, and I don't expect this one to either. But even with that caveat applied, I don't see what Vance exactly brings to the ticket other than being someone who was willing to debase themselves in order to get into Trump's orbit and a dedication to the bigger picture, nationalistic right wing movement in the global sense.

Tim Ryan was a strong candidate in 2022 so that's partly why the Senate race was close, but some of that was just JD Vance being a really terrible candidate as well. He ran well behind pretty much every other statewide office runner in that election. Vance as a selection is a nod to the future and keeping the GOP firmly within the spectrum of the broader right wing movement globally, which is really a terrible thing. But the flipside is that he really lacks any sort of charisma or appeal outside of his VC base... people are likely to see him as a phony, as he is.

Youngkin would be similar to Burgum in that he would be more of a safe, "do not harm" pick.... but I think it's going to be Vance

Now the Republican Speaker... Looks like Politico had a legit angle here

The game show framing is... yikes

Such a unifying message

Just to tie what happened here to some of the comments made after the events of Saturday, I do think this ruling reminds us that some of the comments that dismiss the concerns about our government (ie. "no, the country isn't going to end if Trump is elected) seem a little too dismissive of the idea that another Trump term would drastically alter what this country looks like going forward.

OK

I would suggest that this wasn't luck at play here...

Is it too divisive to suggest that this ruling makes me worry about the state of our democracy?

Incredible

Actual member of Congress now more or less using this line...

Comment was more about controversy within Louisiana, although with the mix of Catholicism and Evangelicalism that exists there, you'd think it matters at least a little bit

There are also differences between Christian denominations, and a breakdown in Separation of Church and State would inevitably lead to the government picking "winners and losers" on that front. IIRC, Louisiana's 10 Commandments Bill has stipulations on which version of the Bible must be used. Not particularly controversial, but one can understand how hairy that can get if taken further on different pieces of legislation

I think the allegation here is that Politico is nutpicking...I take issue with it because there were prominent evangelical leaders around the time of Trump's conviction (Eric Metaxas comes to mind) who literally compared Trump to Christ being crucified. I don't know how prominent it is, but the idea that there aren't corners of the movement who are engaging in this kind of stuff, there's history to suggest that it isn't surprising that some are

The RNC will probably tell us a lot in terms of where we go from here... As far as I can tell, Marjorie Taylor Greene will still be speaking.

Really offensive

If the roles were reversed and it was Biden that this happened to, isn't this what would have happened regardless?

Exactly right. People will try to use this moment to chill any discussion about Project 2025, you are starting to see that already. But in and of itself, talking about the substance of what Project 2025, which was put together by individuals who are likely to staff a future Trump administration, is exactly what campaigns are all about. I think going forward people will need still need to be careful about their rhetoric, but while what happened yesterday was wrong and can never be condoned, it cannot also be used to chill tangible points of discussions about what people want in from a Presidential administration over the next four years.

Wow!

Your point is well taken, but Project 2025 *does* portend huge changes in the way our government works in ways that are too numerous to list here. And undoubtedly one of the aims after this event by Trump's campaign will be to deem discussion of this as "divisive." Never mind, of course, this gem from one of the architects of the plan, which is in no way divisive at all /s: This campaign has thus far been defined by a lack of substance in favor of style. This event cannot be an excuse not to vet the substance that another Trump administration wishes to put forward.