JD Vance SOLID on the Second Amendment

[Yarome]

Which in some ways a good thing.

This helps trump win over some of the more never Trumpers who I think are generally being dumb. When you have two candidates you don't like (which happens a lot) it is your duty to vote for the one who is the least likely to do permanent damage to the culture and institutions. Too many of the silly never trumpers sat at home in 2020 and look what it got us. 4 years of a dodding old fool, a dangerous position in the world, an economy on the rocks and going nowhere, and everyone feeling more pessimistic about the future.

Also, Vance was one of those, like I was who did not support Trump in 2016, thought he would be a disaster and that there were better candidates, BUT who got to know Trump more, saw what he did in office (some of which was very good and some not so good), and came to the conclusion that while I could have wished for more overall he was a much better president than expected and exposed a lot of the rot in Washington.

The fact that you have a sounding board in your admin is a good thing. Hopefully this works out better than Pence proved to be.

Agreed.

It's a smart person that is able to take in new information that challenges their beliefs and adjusts them accordingly. Like a "never trumper" that might eventually change their opinion of him... like Vance. I don't see that in the least bit of a "lack of integrity" issue.

As a person matures, evolves and gains new insights it's somehow more honorable to ignore them and stay along the path of misguided beliefs? "Go down with the ship" no matter what?

I would chalk that up as pure lunacy, and at the very least, a truly disingenuous person. AKA, "lacks integrity".

Just sayin....

 

[Indy62]

Agreed.

It's a smart person that is able to take in new information that challenges their beliefs and adjusts them accordingly. Like a "never trumper" that might eventually change their opinion of him... like Vance. I don't see that in the least bit of a "lack of integrity" issue.

As a person matures, evolves and gains new insights it's somehow more honorable to ignore them and stay along the path of misguided beliefs? "Go down with the ship" no matter what?

I would chalk that up as pure lunacy, and at the very least, a truly disingenuous person. AKA, "lacks integrity".

Just sayin....

You should also bear in mind that many people, myself included, started out as Pro-Trumpers (or more accurately..never Clinton's) and evolved into never Trumpers. Like you said, one can evolve given new information, and change course. The Trump of 2016-2020 is not the Trump of today. Somewhere along the line he..well..snapped. Or he just said F it and showed his real hand. The past three years of his unending, incessantly held views on the constitution, god, revenge. His unabashed arrogance. Countless lies..I mean countless..should have been enough for those of you who, like me, seek sanity and truth. Hatred of the radical left...and there's a lot to hate, is not enough to embrace the equal threat from the radical right.

JD Vance, like was said above, is flowing with the tide. Typical politician. He only cares about power and winning..like Trump. Don't be deceived by either of them.

I still stand firmly with Reagan -- right of center. I don't know how many of us remain..but those that do have checked out of the discourse. No one stands for us anymore.

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold" -Yeats

 

[CamoDeafie]

Lets be realistic here. We have 1 real national Party, with two wings/sides of "opposing idealogues"..

1 side, idealogically, actively, and stridently anti 2A,

The other side, idealogically, actively, and stridently neutral/tolerant of 2A, not actively fighting for the citizens 2A rights; not even with Federal justice nominations

Maybe its changing a little by little but it may take a generation, or three for the "not anti2A" side to actually develop into a Pro2A Party edit, by which point, the 2A may well cease to exist the way we want it to be.

both sides are saying what they think their voters want, and both sides are keen on keeping their positions and power concentrated in D.C.

 

[Yarome]

You should also bear in mind that many people, myself included, started out as Pro-Trumpers (or more accurately..never Clinton's) and evolved into never Trumpers. Like you said, one can evolve given new information, and change course. The Trump of 2016-2020 is not the Trump of today. Somewhere along the line he..well..snapped. Or he just said F it and showed his real hand. The past three years of his unending, incessantly held views on the constitution, god, revenge. His unabashed arrogance. Countless lies..I mean countless..should have been enough for those of you who, like me, seek sanity and truth. Hatred of the radical left...and there's a lot to hate, is not enough to embrace the equal threat from the radical right.

JD Vance, like was said above, is flowing with the tide. Typical politician. He only cares about power and winning..like Trump. Don't be deceived by either of them.

I still stand firmly with Reagan -- right of center. I don't know how many of us remain..but those that do have checked out of the discourse. No one stands for us anymore.

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold" -Yeats

I won't comment on most of that. Too deep in the weeds "political" for NWFA, but I am fully aware folks can evolve in either direction. Your integrity isn't in question no matter which way you swing.

Politicians in flux between appointments I have no issue with them evolving their personal platforms. That said, once elected, they absolutely have an obligation to follow through with the platform they sold their constituents. They represent the ideals of the people they represent... not their own... at that point. Betraying their constituents... I do have a problem with that and question their integrity.

On the voting thing though, It always kind of shocks me when people chose not to. They don't seem to grasp the concept that by not voting you ARE voting.

Simple example. 2 people in a room. They are asked to vote yes or no. One says "yes" and the other choses not to vote. The "yes" vote carries so in the most basic terms, the one who chose to refrain and not cancel out the "yes" vote is no different than having voted "yes", too.

Practical application of that... a person sees one candidate as an absolute disaster for the country, but doesn't feel good about supporting the other guy, either. Not voting against the "disaster" is exactly the same as having voted for him because you allowed a vote in his favor to carry.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

To all here so far in this thread.....
Thank you.
Thank you for the polite political discussion.
Andy

 

[nwslopoke]

That doesn't make me feel any better. For one thing, as most people here know, I am indeed a "never Trumper", and someone who evolves from that to be a supporter of Trump makes me question their principles/integrity.

Then the typical politician practice of evading a question gives me no confidence in their integrity. I understand that to be elected in these times is dependent on that ability (to evade being honest), but that doesn't make me like them.

As a native Californian and classic liberal, it can happen. While there are levels, it's hard to unsee the past 10 -12 years. Especially when you have children.

Most people wilt or capitulate when a mic or camera is stuck in their face. I've learn on principle not to back down. There's never a trophy waiting. They'll just want more.

 

[mhayd93]

You should also bear in mind that many people, myself included, started out as Pro-Trumpers (or more accurately..never Clinton's) and evolved into never Trumpers. Like you said, one can evolve given new information, and change course. The Trump of 2016-2020 is not the Trump of today. Somewhere along the line he..well..snapped. Or he just said F it and showed his real hand. The past three years of his unending, incessantly held views on the constitution, god, revenge. His unabashed arrogance. Countless lies..I mean countless..should have been enough for those of you who, like me, seek sanity and truth. Hatred of the radical left...and there's a lot to hate, is not enough to embrace the equal threat from the radical right.

JD Vance, like was said above, is flowing with the tide. Typical politician. He only cares about power and winning..like Trump. Don't be deceived by either of them.

I still stand firmly with Reagan -- right of center. I don't know how many of us remain..but those that do have checked out of the discourse. No one stands for us anymore.

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold" -Yeats

I greatly miss the relative world peace and significantly cheaper goods and services (as well as more consistent quality) from 2016-2020. Mean tweets didn't bother me much compared to the actual daily reality!

ETA: There will never be a perfect candidate, because one voter's perfect will be another's line in the sand. Even a president like Reagan had many glaring flaws, controversies, and was hardly a staunch 2A advocate.

 

[nwslopoke]

I greatly miss the relative world peace and significantly cheaper goods and services (as well as more consistent quality) from 2016-2020. Mean tweets didn't bother me much compared to the actual daily reality!

Mean, maybe. Were they wrong? In most cases, he wasn't wrong just going against the grain. Hopefully, more people will hear about Viktor Orban. The EU are doing to him what US media did to Trump. Can't have peace. They'll lose too much money.

 

[raftman]

…

ETA: There will never be a perfect candidate, because one voter's perfect will be another's line in the sand. Even a president like Reagan had many glaring flaws, controversies, and was hardly a staunch 2A advocate.

The way I see it, it's a bit like being on the 2nd floor of a building that's on fire with no way out other than through the window into the bushes outside. Just because you don't like either the idea of burning up or jumping out a window doesn't mean it's a good idea (or even possible, really) to choose neither. Sure you'd rather Superman would break through the ceiling and whisk you away to safety, but there is no Superman. That would be holding out for a choice you don't have.

 

[DameTime5]

This dude was anti-Trump for years and even went so far to call him Hitler. Now all of a sudden he's Trumps VP and all is good?

Seems to me like he'll say/do what gets him the most attention. In politics attention = money. Who's to say that he's not playing his cards right now to appeal to Republican voters, and then leave us out to dry later on when him and Trump find an excuse to ban something in the wake of a shooting (I'm looking at you bump stocks)?

I'm highly skeptical of this guy and just don't see him being the guy who will do anything for the 2A. I don't see Trump doing anything either. Until we see them reverse gun laws, sign executive orders or actually abolishing the ATF, then I won't listen to a word they say.

 

[CamoDeafie]

This dude was anti-Trump for years and even went so far to call him Hitler. Now all of a sudden he's Trumps VP and all is good?

Seems to me like he'll say/do what gets him the most attention. In politics attention = money. Who's to say that he's not playing his cards right now to appeal to Republican voters, and then leave us out to dry later on when him and Trump find an excuse to ban something in the wake of a shooting (I'm looking at you bump stocks)?

I'm highly skeptical of this guy and just don't see him being the guy who will do anything for the 2A. I don't see Trump doing anything either. Until we see them reverse gun laws, sign executive orders or actually abolishing the ATF, then I won't listen to a word they say.

Heres a crazy thought. He knows about the attempt at Trumps life. He maybe betting that whoever wants Trump dead, isn't going to let a near miss stop them. And planning to secure his own presidency by making sure Trump wins, and keep Trump alive until after the swearing in?

Edit, yes its borderline pyschopathic and yes its implausible but not impossible.

 

[DameTime5]

Heres a crazy thought. He knows about the attempt at Trumps life. He maybe betting that whoever wants Trump dead, isn't going to let a near miss stop them. And planning to secure his own presidency by making sure Trump wins, and keep Trump alive until after the swearing in?

Edit, yes its borderline pyschopathic and yes its implausible but not impossible.

They killed the shooter so..

 

[CamoDeafie]

They killed the shooter so..

Doesn't mean is the only one crazed enough out there

 

[Yarome]

Everytown is running this....



They'll always tell you what they're scared of.

 

[25-06]

Which in some ways a good thing.

This helps trump win over some of the more never Trumpers who I think are generally being dumb. When you have two candidates you don't like (which happens a lot) it is your duty to vote for the one who is the least likely to do permanent damage to the culture and institutions. Too many of the silly never trumpers sat at home in 2020 and look what it got us. 4 years of a dodding old fool, a dangerous position in the world, an economy on the rocks and going nowhere, and everyone feeling more pessimistic about the future.

Also, Vance was one of those, like I was who did not support Trump in 2016, thought he would be a disaster and that there were better candidates, BUT who got to know Trump more, saw what he did in office (some of which was very good and some not so good), and came to the conclusion that while I could have wished for more overall he was a much better president than expected and exposed a lot of the rot in Washington.

The fact that you have a sounding board in your admin is a good thing. Hopefully this works out better than Pence proved to be.

I think it's more likely Vance has done the calculus rather than change his opinion of Trump. If Trump wins he'll be the oldest POTUS ever, and he's not healthy.

 

[raftman]

Choosing Vance was strategically smart on Trump's part. Perhaps not the absolute best choice, but a good one.

For starters, Vance is only 39. It adds balance. Trump's age is a perceived as a problem. He's obviously far more with-it than his opponent to a point where it's almost absurd to make the comparison… but ultimately age isn't just a number.

Secondly, Vance isn't seen as an establishment hack along the lines of Nikki Haley. It's a recognition that most people don't want Dick Cheney in heels in the White House. An establishment hack is just a member of the uniparty where business as usually continues under a new name.

 

[Yarome]

For starters, Vance is only 39. It adds balance. Trump's age is a perceived as a problem.

Secondly, Vance isn't seen as an establishment hack

I agree. The only "con" in there is that he is only 39 and doesn't even have 2 years under his belt in the deep political realm.

If Trump strokes out or his ticket get's punched, how comfortable are people with the idea of him becoming POTUS(?)

Personally, I feel the need for a massive reawakening in the country if we have much hope of trying to get the US back on track. A 39year old full of "vim and vinegar"... and unhampered by the establishment mentality... may be just what we need to help set us on the road to recovery and ease the way to continue to restore our 2A rights.

Vance is a bit of an unknown element and quite a risk, but... "no risk no reward". Throw in there too that after brandon, even if he doesn't live up to our hopes, it's not like he's going to F things up any worse than they already are.

"When you hit rock bottom the only direction to go is up"(?)

 

[CamoDeafie]

I agree. The only "con" in there is that he is only 39 and doesn't even have 2 years under his belt in the deep political realm.

If Trump strokes out or his ticket get's punched, how comfortable are people with the idea of him becoming POTUS(?)

Personally, I feel the need for a massive reawakening in the country if we have much hope of trying to get the US back on track. A 39year old full of "vim and vinegar"... and unhampered by the establishment mentality... may be just what we need to help set us on the road to recovery and ease the way to continue to restore our 2A rights.

Vance is a bit of an unknown element and quite a risk, but... "no risk no reward". Throw in there too that after brandon, even if he doesn't live up to our hopes, it's not like he's going to F things up any worse than they already are.

"When you hit rock bottom the only direction to go is up"(?)

May I present you... Barack H. Obama?

47 when he started presidency; was senator for some years for Illinois, and served as a State Senator before Congress?
If Trump manages to win and survive for 4 years,.JD Vance could conceivably campaign as Presidential candidate after Trump, similar to how Biden was VP for 8 years and is incumbent president?

 

[raftman]

I agree. The only "con" in there is that he is only 39 and doesn't even have 2 years under his belt in the deep political realm.

If Trump strokes out or his ticket get's punched, how comfortable are people with the idea of him becoming POTUS(?)…

Not too far off from Teddy Roosevelt who became president at 42… when McKinley's ticket got punched (cue x-files theme music).

 

[CLT65]

Something to bear in mind: left-of-center never-Trumpers here might use bumpstocks as an excuse to bash him and question his 2A credentials, but you'll find that in reality other non-2A issues (that we don't talk about here) are more important to them, and they hate him primarily for that. That is their right and I'm not saying that's not legitimate. I have no interest in arguing politics; just a heads-up so you can understand. If you read other threads here closely, that becomes very clear.

There's a lot I don't like and can't defend about Trump or the republican party, nor will I try, but U.S. Supreme Court appointments are vitally important to the future of the Second Amendment, and personally that issue alone would influence my vote, if the right to bear arms was important to me (which it is).

That's just me though. Many here will never vote for him under any circumstances. Just be aware that it probably has nothing to do with guns.