567
Everybody screenshot and archive that amazon page before they edit it!
Edit: I couldn't archive.org to capture it, but this should work: https://archive.ph/pqXje
"hey, vance! were gonna staple this shitty project to your forehea... oh. well then. never mind. carry on."
My god, it's a who's-who of America's shittiest people, all praising that heap of garbage
We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon
So, political violence?
For folks who don't get to the page until it is scrubbed (which might not happen, but I expect it will), you are quoting from the "Editorial Reviews" section a quote by "Senator JD Vance"! 🫢
You mean Donald Trump’s running mate? That JD Vance who promoted political violence? Seems like that would be a bad thing considering somebody tried to assassinate his running mate.
And his running mate tried to have his predecessor killed
somebody tried to assassinate his running mate.
It was one of their own too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The cover of the book also says that Vance wrote the forward in the book. I hope it's too late for the publisher to change it. I'd love to read what Trump's VP choice has to say about the Christian Nationalist overthrow of out nation. Not that I'd ever pay money for a copy of the book, to be clear.
It's only violence if you try and stop them, you filthy lefty.
"we are in the process of the second American Revolution"
Says the so-called patriot... The American Revolution was revolting from another government to make a new one. So.... They hate America so much they want to make a new one. Some real patriots there...
That's a nothing burger, really. Everyday political talk to my mind.
The changes here, along with your quote, are more damning:
"A sentence on the archived page that says the book “blazes a warpath for the American people to take back their country” now says it “blazes a promising path.” Another fiery sentence on the archived page read, “Just as a controlled burn preserves the longevity of a forest, conservatives need to burn down these institutions [the FBI, The New York Times, the Department of Education, etc.] if we’re to preserve the American Way of life.” It now says that those institutions “need to be dissolved if the American way of life is to be passed down to future generations.”
Also notice the Trump language: "take back their country", "preserve the American Way of life". Straight from the fascist playbook.
If Trump wins, I honestly hope at least some of you libs have armed yourselves and trained. I am a peaceful man, but I am not harmless.
Far more “libs” are armed than you would know. It’s just not part of their identity.
Vance is a big phat phony in the vein of Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham. Even credulous MAGA smells a rat. Everybody else suspects he's a Wall st. mole to soothe the minds of the ownership class.
No matter how you look at it, Vance is another bad deal brought to you by Donald Trump.
And his book is mostly bullshit
People talk about hard work all the time in places like Middletown. You can walk through a town where 30 percent of the young men work fewer than twenty hours a week and find not a single person aware of his own laziness.
According to him, rural people can't find work because they're lazy.
Oh, he also talks about punching his stepdad who "wasn't a violent man". I expect it's just political grandstanding to show he was a tough kid.
Like he’s right that Middletown is a shithole. But it’s a location devastated by collapse of the rust belt. It’s basically a suburb of a suburb of fucking dayton. The people of Middletown aren’t lazy, they’re desperate and they’re tired.
I don’t know how he managed to become a senator here, he clearly fucking hates Ohioans.
I've seen lots of poor criticism of Vance but your concise little comment actually hit the nail on the head.
Trump, undoubtedly aware of the plan’s growing unpopularity, has claimed, “I know nothing about Project 2025” and that “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”
How does he know things in it are abysmal if he has no knowledge of it?
Semi brain dead orange man
Semi?
I realize this is just my brain struggling desperately to pattern match and make sense of something that doesn't, like seeing faces in white noise on a TV. But "they" could be the people saying things about Project 2025, not the fascist propaganda itself.
Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism
What a jackass. A new future for conservatism is an oxymoron. It makes a lot more sense when you read "conservatism" as a euphemism for authoritarianism.
He really does lay the eyeliner on thick
Like, it looks good on him, but for someone whose party is so angry about men wearing makeup it’s definitely a choice
No shit. It looks like someone is a little curious... I wonder if his project 2025 involves a closet?
It’s tattooed on.
That and seeing him without a beard is all the information anyone ever needs about J.D. Vance.
On the Amazon product page, the promotional material for the book, titled Dawn’s Early Light, highlights Roberts’s role in composing Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation proposal for a ~~conservative~~ fascist overhaul of the federal government.
FTFY.
So trump chose a fascist VP? SHOCK!!!!! /s
As Trump desperately tries to separate his campaign from Project 2025, users on X have noted one big problem: J.D. Vance wrote the foreword to a forthcoming book by the plan’s lead author, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.
On the Amazon product page, the promotional material for the book, titled Dawn’s Early Light, highlights Roberts’s role in composing Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation proposal for a conservative overhaul of the federal government.
The product page also includes a favorable review from Vance. “Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism,” the review says. “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.”
can’t claim he knew nothing about extremist Project 2025
You sure about that?
I think there's an implied 'plausibly' there.
Donald Trump can’t plausibly deny that he is entirely unqualified to be president, yet here we are.
Watch him try to deny it, like Austin Powers trying to deny that the Swedish penis pump was his, until they also bring out the "Swedish penis pumps are my bag, baby, by Austin Powers" book with a photo of him on the cover.
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJXNJfb3yk
Andy Beshear is the exact opposite of JD Vance. He’s an authentic, decent person who can speak to rural communities and purple states with sincerity, the one thing that is truly lacking in American politics.
I know Shapiro is the conventional wisdom pick, but Beshear is the right pick.
Mark Kelly seems like the right pick to me, he's got the overview effect and has unique experiences and leadership, already has experience in the Senate which is their main job, can probably take his swing state blue, and his seat can be easily replaced.
Shapiro is too pro-Netanyahu IMO, I'm neutral on Beshear, but his seat isn't as easily replaceable, and losing a democratic governor would suck, and he might not take the state blue.
I like Kelly as a VP pick, but I don’t like turning a safe senate seat into a tossup. Beshear is term limited, so his lieutenant governor can finish the term and run as an incumbent.
I think they’re probably going with Shapiro, though. The old guard will see Pennsylvania turning blue and put their blinders on to everything else.
If Kelly gets the VP, the democratic governor of Arizona gets to pick his replacement, it's not a special election or a tossup!
load more comments
(1 replies)
the right pick
beg pardon, the right pick for what?
They mentioned Shapiro, so VP.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
567 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3859 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS