The figure we know as "JD Vance" was likely a historic person only in the sense that King Arthur was.

A political leader by that name probably lived in the early third millennium, but the figure that's come down to us in the sources is likely an amalgamation of traditions, beliefs, aspirations, and real individuals who were used to express the ideals of the right wing community. It is almost certain that the author of "Hillbilly Elegy" and the vice president were real individuals, but certainly two different ones, likely conflated due to similar background, though very different attitudes, particularly to Donald Trump.

The “JD Vance shtupped a couch” thing isn’t a harmless joke. It’s an Orwellian power move.

The original post says he describes the act on pgs. 179-181 of “Hillbilly Elegy.” It takes five seconds to disprove. Ted Cruz’s dad shooting JFK is a more plausible claim by far.

But the obvious falsity is part of the flex. They’re telling us that they can invent something out of whole cloth and then *make it true* by getting enough people to repeat it enough times.

And if you try to deny the false rumor, you just validate it more. The point is to make you feel powerless and accept their lies as your new reality.

It’s a tactic befitting both a totalitarian propaganda machine and a clique of particularly insidious high school mean girls. Their entire campaign is built on high school bullying tactics.

Which is ironic given that Democrats consider themselves a coalition of outcast GSA/theatre kids revolting against the Chads and Staceys.

Arguments like this rely on a bizarre conflation of the individual and the state. As a Christian, I'm called to turn the other cheek. But the duty of the state is to punish evil and reward virtue.

https://twitter.com/sladesr/status/1607410559422447624

Leaders and legislators who base their actions on a false equivalency between good and evil are not being loving or merciful. They're misusing the power with which they've been entrusted.

Exactly. The elites are fully devoted to destroying beauty. To them, the highest achievement is not to create something beautiful. Rather, it is to call something ugly beautiful and get others to do the same.

https://twitter.com/loganclarkhall/status/1602338789174743040

Our ancestors strove to meet a standard that was external to and higher than themselves. Today, the arbiters of taste celebrate the absence of any such standard. today.com/food/trends/ba…

I don't understand. How could anyone vote against this? What was the messaging for the "No" campaign? There's a version of the pro-choice argument that I can grudgingly understand (safe/legal/rare), but if you voted "No" on this, you're actually evil. You deserve to be punished.