I think your perspective and knowledge of Vance is good. Yet Vance's knowledge, from a government's perspective, is quite short, only serving a few years as a Senator. I believe as the nation's VP he will learn a lot, especially from Trump. As such, the rough edges and doctrines he believes in will most likely change. For Trump, this second time around is quite different. The first time he was taken to the cleaners by listening to insiders who didn't have his interest at heart. This time I truly believe his choices will decidedly different. And that has begun with his choice of J.D. Vance.
Biden called for a ceasefire concerning heated rhetoric? Has anyone on this post forgotten that very un-Presidential Philadelphia address? On another website this morning I saw an article in which Biden refused to accept any responsibility for heated rhetoric. The Philadelphia speech gives the lie to his denial.
Although this might describe most politicians, Vance is an unprincipled opportunist. Trump selected him not because he is capable of being President or to improve the electability of the ticket, but because he is Don Jr's buddy. His isolationism reflects a profound and dangerous ignorance of world history.
Baloney. Remember Pence, Agnew, Harris et Al’s? VP is not a guaranteed automatic step up in any regard . As Vance serves more will be ascertained by the people of him. DT be re elected and Dems bring much chaos. This will also give some determination of Vance. 2028 will give several Repub candidates open doors to run.
Just as JD changed from 2016, it is much too early to figure out where is will lead the party, once he has the top job. Lets give him time to get his feet wet.
Erick, the fact that Vance is an apostate could be the whole premise for why Trump picked him. Vance, an adversary, studied Trump’s polices and theories, and then saw truth. Vance making that logical switch is the epitome of a voter who does his homework and is able to see multiple sides to the story and then change his mind.
"In early 2016, I was on a train from New York to Washington for work. "
When reached for comment, Joe Biden replied... 'I remember that Erick kid. He walked up to me and - well - he pinched my cheeks and said 'Joey Baby!' Anyway, then he asked me about my Uncle Bozie, who was eaten by cannibals, no lie, but I told him about my homie Corn pop, who was a bad dude, who ran with a bunch of bad boys, and how they rubbed the blond hair on my legs... well... anyway.'
I live in NJ so when in 2016 Primary Day came, I had to choose someone else’s choice. Trump. The primary system has to be changed.
Someone from National Review was interviewed and he said that the choice of Trump or Clinton made the living envy the dead. I agreed. I voted for Trump as the lesser of the evils.
Fast forward to 2020 and I now support him. No wars and things were a lot better under his leadership. Many of his failings can be placed on the wimps in the party who didn’t want to change anything since life is good when you sit at the Table of Power. Remember the calls to repeal/replace Obamacare? Get the dead wood out of both parties.
"As political parties sort themselves out, we tend to pick sides. Those of us of faith need to remember that our SIDE is with Jesus, not Republicans or Democrats. A lot of people on the Right are going to advocate methods, tactics, and positions that may gain you an America you love while costing you eternity. You'll be bullied and harassed for rejecting those methods, tactics, and positions, but you must resist.
Don't put your trust in people particularly the proud and puffed up. We live in a postmodern world, and there will be those who act like jackasses, and expect jackassery from you toward those on the "other side." You must first love your neighbor. You must show grace.
Frankly and truthfully, we are reaching a time when Christians may have to step out of party politics and maybe out of a party altogether. One of the great dangers of a Republican Party that increasingly covets centralized power is this: Christians know how this story ends. Things are going to get far worse before they get better. Be wary of giving power to any person or tribe which can be used against you."
Erick Erickson, "You Shall be as Gods" page 161
So, tell me, why in God's name should I remain subscribed to this newsletter??
"we are reaching a time when Christians may have to step out of party politics" Yes we have a modicum of a free country so lets squander what's left and abandon ship. Yes let babies die by not killing our own. That will convince the molochs. Let them march you to the reeducation camps or decide when you have lived enough because it's all in God's plan or something.
Let them take your money, the fruit of your labor, but have no say in its use because politics is dirty or something. Let them make you actually dependent on the state in spite of your psychological but ineffective resistance for lack of organization. Let them force you into second class citizenship because of your beliefs.
You are strong. Your family is strong. No problem. Let them corrupt the young. Let them collude to have you or your children not own anything and of course be happy.
Politics reflects social movements including religious. You can be part of, or help create, or help focus one , make it better, or you can be passive because they are all unchangably the same after all and it is soooo hard to vote in a primary and promote good leaders.
You can sit and earnestly pray or maybe do good works while you passively let the evil ones do evil works on a massive scale. You are either anointed or you are not so let the devil have his quota unchallenged. Lead us not into temptation has no social application. Organized deliverance from evil is anathema and only reflects a worldly materialistic mind set. God really does not want us to help others or ourselves through that evil institution of self-governance, so worldly a thing in the world He put us in.
Seriously the focus should be on the hereafter but the here has a purpose. Our brief involvement has consequences for ourselves and others. Socialism is inimical to the Christian understanding of that purpose. Resistance to socialism/communism and all they entail, through participation in political parties rightly engaged, influenced by Christians being involved I believe is in keeping with God's will.
Not that I support communism, but I've always wondered how Christians that oppose it reconcile that opposition with Acts 4:34-35; this virtually being the very definition of communism.
No, voluntary communalism, practical and temporary for specific apostles mission as that passage refers to from what I read (they could not work their day jobs and preach with urgency) is what that pertains to, not advocacy for a general communist system (classically atheistic and inextricably so still given its materialist, statist, coveting, confiscatory dynamics and rejection of so many Christian precepts. There was no general admonishment for having or maintaining one's possessions to be a Christian. We know from experience that private capital formation and low taxes is best for human flourishing. The mid 18th century Popes up to Francis were devastating in their encyclicals about communism and socialism.
Your reading of those verses as pertaining only to the apostles' welfare is belied by the separate treatment of "the apostles" versus "every man" in Verse 35. If the proceeds were only for the apostles' benefit, the verse would more logically have read, "And laid them down at the apostles' feet and distribution was made unto each of them [instead of "every man"] according as he had need."
Verse 32 is further proof that this was not just for the benefit of the apostles: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own: but they had all things in common."
In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote, ""The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Is that not precisely what Verse 32 describes?
Again no. I am not a Biblical scholar but reading several of the on-point exegesis offered by “googling” (actually I used the Duck) that is not what I found. Some get deeper into the Greek grammars of the time. Beyond me. It does seem to me that Christianity would not have spread with such a discipline rather than the admonition not to accumulate for accumulation’s sake. Giving presumes accumulation. Accumulation was not considered antithetical to Christianity in and of itself. The Bible including the new Testament is replete with ordinary believers having wealth and not described as evil therefore. I do not think there is a philosophy or economic system more antithetical to Christianity than Marxism. Read: The Devil and Karl Marx by Paul Kengor.
I agree that the Bible suggests no prohibition on the accumulation of wealth. My point is simply that it also contains no condemnation on its accumulation on a collective, rather than individual basis. In my view, Christianity pertains to the spirit while communism (or capitalism, for that matter) pertains to economics. Christ himself recognized the distinction when he said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Mark 12:17.
Karl Marx would no doubt disagree, considering religion of any sort to be the "opiate of the masses." Not only did Christ say no such thing about communism, however, the fact is - and it's right there in black and white - that the earliest Christians lived communally. To share everything that one owns with others is entirely consistent with the spirit of giving and concern for the poor that was a big part of Christ's ministry. Indeed, it may well be the ultimate expression of love and concern for others.
No, not saying that. We were insufficient in the primary and some people really think the guy is anointed, that is immature but they get to vote. By comparison to Dems Trump is laissez fare. We have someone who has some great merit opposing someone part of an utterly evil party, autocratic in all ways. The lesser autocrat if you must call Trump autocrat.
You can see the autocracy in the Democrats but not in Trump's GOP? What's that parable, something about seeing the splinter in someone's eye but ignoring the plank in your own? This GOP is rhetorically more autocratic than the Democrats at this point. And this comes from the leader of the party.
President Trump says he's rewriting his speech to be more unifying. I was hopeful when I first heard that. Facing a near death experience can change people. However, when he chose J.D. Vance, my enthusiasm waned. I'm still looking forward to his speech but I'm not optimistic it will be broadly unifying. I hope I'm wrong.
Because Erick says it straight, and obviously lets the chips fall. You’re never going to find a substack that agrees with your every idea. If you do and feel comfortable there, you’re in a bubble, which is useless.
I’ve actually been wondering this myself. Erick now seems almost all in on Trump. It doesn’t seem to resonate well with this passage from the book, and I own the book.
Almost all in?? I too own the book and I’m not a Christian. I bought it more to support Erick. I hate to say it but and maybe this is in his subconscious but he sees the opportunity to capture Rush Limbaugh’s fame and the money he will make.
I'm no longer sure. He's no longer an honest broker of information to me. He's pushing this line that the media (MSNBC, et al) is responsible for the assassination attempt. We don't know what this guy's motivation was. He is using his platform to get Trump elected. Not what I signed up for.
And now he gives $1000 to his campaign after poor mouthing about his financial struggles.
Erick's basing his comments about MSNBC from what happened to Steve Scalese. I think Erick has seen the Washington Post become a Hamas supporting organ and is appalled by the antisemitism of the left. He sees an open border and the scandalous killing of innocent Americans by illegals. He sees how destructive allowing an open border is and how feckless and disingenuous the left is about their support for open borders. And he sees President Biden as a supporter of the leftists inflicting all this on us. Erick has made clear how he feels about Trump, wanted Haley or DeSantis, but when they lost out during the primary, Trump became the conservative standard bearer, and, as a conservative, Erick backed Trump. I believe Erick sees supporting Trump is essential when the choice is four more years of whatever this mess has been. I do not see how Erick's positions on Trump conflict with the quote you shared from his book. His quote, I feel very sure, is warning everyone about the coming consolidation of godless human hubris and power scripture says will happen, where people will have to choose between living, working, and eating comfortably, in this life, versus refusing to submit to this future godless world government, and thereby suffering poverty, starvation, death, but preserving their souls.
Erick is not in a bubble, he is very transparent and can see and understand other perspectives he vehemently disagrees with. If I though Erick were a Trump sycophant, I would not subscribe to him. Frankly, Trump and the GOP need people like Erick to point out when they are wearing no clothes. I think there is value, Theirn, in you continuing to subscribe to Erick's substack because he is an honest broker of information. If I see him becoming a Trump lap dog, I'll beat you in letting my subscription lapse.
Vance seems to advance his knowledge on each day, learning more. That is the most exciting thing about it. My son Dan and he were born on the same day, and I’m trying to imagine my son as a VP (he’s a great young man, by the way). I like this pick because he is educable.
I was hoping that Trump would be bold and take someone more clearly conservative. Vance isn't bad, but he's more like Rubio Lite...every day, the wind blows in a different direction, and so do they. But I do like how the left immediately turned on Vance--they never learn, do they?
His first elected office is his present one, and he is not even halfway through his first term...
The parallel to Obama is exactly what went through my mind.
Never underestimate Biden's ability to f things up.
Never underestimate Trump's ego.
We are in an age were there nomination is believed to be tantamount to winning the general election. Only Biden can remove Biden, and only Trump can defeat Trump. Anything that does not help Trump win ultimate will be viewed as a component of why he lost.
Trump's biggest problem is his supporters are the least likely to vote.
Does Vance make Democrats excited to turn out for a demitia patient and haplessly Jamaican/Indian daughter of a slave owning family?
Vance / Obama comparison basically ends there. Obama did nothing in life up to the point of running for US Senate and the Presidency. Vance actually has business experience, military experience, experience being poor, and he doesn't resent his 'white' side.
Some better than others but we are dealing with Trump who can be easily fooled with flattery. I do not know where Vance lands with that. He first got elected without flattering Trump. His change to support of Trump then seems genuine.
But on some policies that is indeed troubling. The Trump RNC had to be dragged to say anything about "life" in the platform, and then leaving it undefined and policy accordingly as flexible as they see fit. It is a demeanor that just wants abortion to go away because heck such a fundamental question scares them, their big donors who know politics so well, and they just hate having to deal with it. Same is true about marriage, "they respect it" but nothing defining it as between one biological man and one biological female.
Read into it what you will. A wink wink here and a wink wink there. They sure don't want to be beholden to those so-cons. That is the long standing preference of Trump and the RNC apparat in alignment.
As for social issues the women sports thing is an easy thing, there is little confusion about it, there will be limited ineffective resistance by Democrats, they are already folding. States could handle that as well but somehow that makes it in? It is supposed to say something to so-cons but it is a bobble.
The Trump brain trust's view seems to be let the Dems blast away on the abortion issue, ineffectually answered because ~~ we are going to win anyway on the border and inflation. Those guys were handed Dementia Joe, the political equivalent of being born on third base, and they think they are geniuses. Indeed they are so smart they agreed to debate (expose the guy unassailably) in time to allow the Dems to switch horses if they want. The truth is Biden is deteriorating so quickly, known to be for a long time that ANY of several challengers to Trump in the primary running a competent campaign would win. But the Trump apparat think they have a special feel for the pulse of America when America sees Biden's failing pulse on their own.
The problem for the pro-life movement with so many so-con's so easily going along out of false desperation (they should have demanded more coherence in the platform) is that the pro-aborts will still use the issue, it will comprise the Democrat campaign (they think it is key and there donor base is so into abortion they will go along with trying to make it so). While we will still win the presidency those pro-abort ads will scare support in the states where the issue is. The powers that be should insist on adequate pro-life response emanating from or fostered by Trump and the RNC. They don't care enough on their own.
A big problem is that the platform is too short. You cannot clarify or add needed nuance or rhetoric or argument. The fetish of grunts constituting a platform (redundant ones at that if you have read the little orange pamphlet) is counterproductive in its own way. Democrats can "read into it " what ever their lying evil brains conjure.
Note I am not calling for a national prohibition in the platform at some timeline as has been done but which begs the question what about a day earlier. More a statement to the effect of encouraging the states to advance the cause of life, protect life as much as practicable but never abandon the vulnerable at any stage as our pro-life administrration will also pursue. If you are going to be vague be vague in a discernible direction avoiding insult or sense of abandonment. A statement supporting marriage as between one biological man and one biological woman would not be punished in this electorate. It is vague enough (their fetish) but invokes nothing they won't be asked about regarding the meaning of the current rendition except the current one invites them to say - we support gay marriage. Marriage is marriage. They have engendered more conservative dissatisfaction than gained in liberal satisfaction.
The platform is confused and indecipherable on those issues probably on purpose but never underestimate Trump's opinionated ignorance. That the platform is given over to the quirks of a nominee is unbecoming a political party which should be transcendent and not simply a candidate's PAC.
Trump could’ve picked oxygen as his VP and the left would suddenly hate oxygen. I’m fine with Vance - he’s not Kamala. I’ll happily vote for the Trump / Vance ticket. Trump did govern well - even if he has past character issues (who amongst us is perfect?). However, in 2028 I still expect to see a robust Republican presidential primary filled with many successful candidates- DeSantis, Youngkin and many others.
I think your perspective and knowledge of Vance is good. Yet Vance's knowledge, from a government's perspective, is quite short, only serving a few years as a Senator. I believe as the nation's VP he will learn a lot, especially from Trump. As such, the rough edges and doctrines he believes in will most likely change. For Trump, this second time around is quite different. The first time he was taken to the cleaners by listening to insiders who didn't have his interest at heart. This time I truly believe his choices will decidedly different. And that has begun with his choice of J.D. Vance.
From Medpage, a respected medical/healthcare news service https://www.statnews.com/2024/07/15/jd-vance-trump-vp-healthcare-abortion-investments/
Biden called for a ceasefire concerning heated rhetoric? Has anyone on this post forgotten that very un-Presidential Philadelphia address? On another website this morning I saw an article in which Biden refused to accept any responsibility for heated rhetoric. The Philadelphia speech gives the lie to his denial.
Although this might describe most politicians, Vance is an unprincipled opportunist. Trump selected him not because he is capable of being President or to improve the electability of the ticket, but because he is Don Jr's buddy. His isolationism reflects a profound and dangerous ignorance of world history.
Baloney. Remember Pence, Agnew, Harris et Al’s? VP is not a guaranteed automatic step up in any regard . As Vance serves more will be ascertained by the people of him. DT be re elected and Dems bring much chaos. This will also give some determination of Vance. 2028 will give several Repub candidates open doors to run.
Just as JD changed from 2016, it is much too early to figure out where is will lead the party, once he has the top job. Lets give him time to get his feet wet.
Erick, the fact that Vance is an apostate could be the whole premise for why Trump picked him. Vance, an adversary, studied Trump’s polices and theories, and then saw truth. Vance making that logical switch is the epitome of a voter who does his homework and is able to see multiple sides to the story and then change his mind.
Trump picked him because he is Don Jr's buddy.
"In early 2016, I was on a train from New York to Washington for work. "
When reached for comment, Joe Biden replied... 'I remember that Erick kid. He walked up to me and - well - he pinched my cheeks and said 'Joey Baby!' Anyway, then he asked me about my Uncle Bozie, who was eaten by cannibals, no lie, but I told him about my homie Corn pop, who was a bad dude, who ran with a bunch of bad boys, and how they rubbed the blond hair on my legs... well... anyway.'
I live in NJ so when in 2016 Primary Day came, I had to choose someone else’s choice. Trump. The primary system has to be changed.
Someone from National Review was interviewed and he said that the choice of Trump or Clinton made the living envy the dead. I agreed. I voted for Trump as the lesser of the evils.
Fast forward to 2020 and I now support him. No wars and things were a lot better under his leadership. Many of his failings can be placed on the wimps in the party who didn’t want to change anything since life is good when you sit at the Table of Power. Remember the calls to repeal/replace Obamacare? Get the dead wood out of both parties.
"As political parties sort themselves out, we tend to pick sides. Those of us of faith need to remember that our SIDE is with Jesus, not Republicans or Democrats. A lot of people on the Right are going to advocate methods, tactics, and positions that may gain you an America you love while costing you eternity. You'll be bullied and harassed for rejecting those methods, tactics, and positions, but you must resist.
Don't put your trust in people particularly the proud and puffed up. We live in a postmodern world, and there will be those who act like jackasses, and expect jackassery from you toward those on the "other side." You must first love your neighbor. You must show grace.
Frankly and truthfully, we are reaching a time when Christians may have to step out of party politics and maybe out of a party altogether. One of the great dangers of a Republican Party that increasingly covets centralized power is this: Christians know how this story ends. Things are going to get far worse before they get better. Be wary of giving power to any person or tribe which can be used against you."
Erick Erickson, "You Shall be as Gods" page 161
So, tell me, why in God's name should I remain subscribed to this newsletter??
"we are reaching a time when Christians may have to step out of party politics" Yes we have a modicum of a free country so lets squander what's left and abandon ship. Yes let babies die by not killing our own. That will convince the molochs. Let them march you to the reeducation camps or decide when you have lived enough because it's all in God's plan or something.
Let them take your money, the fruit of your labor, but have no say in its use because politics is dirty or something. Let them make you actually dependent on the state in spite of your psychological but ineffective resistance for lack of organization. Let them force you into second class citizenship because of your beliefs.
You are strong. Your family is strong. No problem. Let them corrupt the young. Let them collude to have you or your children not own anything and of course be happy.
Politics reflects social movements including religious. You can be part of, or help create, or help focus one , make it better, or you can be passive because they are all unchangably the same after all and it is soooo hard to vote in a primary and promote good leaders.
You can sit and earnestly pray or maybe do good works while you passively let the evil ones do evil works on a massive scale. You are either anointed or you are not so let the devil have his quota unchallenged. Lead us not into temptation has no social application. Organized deliverance from evil is anathema and only reflects a worldly materialistic mind set. God really does not want us to help others or ourselves through that evil institution of self-governance, so worldly a thing in the world He put us in.
Seriously the focus should be on the hereafter but the here has a purpose. Our brief involvement has consequences for ourselves and others. Socialism is inimical to the Christian understanding of that purpose. Resistance to socialism/communism and all they entail, through participation in political parties rightly engaged, influenced by Christians being involved I believe is in keeping with God's will.
Not that I support communism, but I've always wondered how Christians that oppose it reconcile that opposition with Acts 4:34-35; this virtually being the very definition of communism.
Search "is Acts 4:34-35 communist"
No, voluntary communalism, practical and temporary for specific apostles mission as that passage refers to from what I read (they could not work their day jobs and preach with urgency) is what that pertains to, not advocacy for a general communist system (classically atheistic and inextricably so still given its materialist, statist, coveting, confiscatory dynamics and rejection of so many Christian precepts. There was no general admonishment for having or maintaining one's possessions to be a Christian. We know from experience that private capital formation and low taxes is best for human flourishing. The mid 18th century Popes up to Francis were devastating in their encyclicals about communism and socialism.
Your reading of those verses as pertaining only to the apostles' welfare is belied by the separate treatment of "the apostles" versus "every man" in Verse 35. If the proceeds were only for the apostles' benefit, the verse would more logically have read, "And laid them down at the apostles' feet and distribution was made unto each of them [instead of "every man"] according as he had need."
Verse 32 is further proof that this was not just for the benefit of the apostles: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own: but they had all things in common."
In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote, ""The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Is that not precisely what Verse 32 describes?
Again no. I am not a Biblical scholar but reading several of the on-point exegesis offered by “googling” (actually I used the Duck) that is not what I found. Some get deeper into the Greek grammars of the time. Beyond me. It does seem to me that Christianity would not have spread with such a discipline rather than the admonition not to accumulate for accumulation’s sake. Giving presumes accumulation. Accumulation was not considered antithetical to Christianity in and of itself. The Bible including the new Testament is replete with ordinary believers having wealth and not described as evil therefore. I do not think there is a philosophy or economic system more antithetical to Christianity than Marxism. Read: The Devil and Karl Marx by Paul Kengor.
I agree that the Bible suggests no prohibition on the accumulation of wealth. My point is simply that it also contains no condemnation on its accumulation on a collective, rather than individual basis. In my view, Christianity pertains to the spirit while communism (or capitalism, for that matter) pertains to economics. Christ himself recognized the distinction when he said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Mark 12:17.
Karl Marx would no doubt disagree, considering religion of any sort to be the "opiate of the masses." Not only did Christ say no such thing about communism, however, the fact is - and it's right there in black and white - that the earliest Christians lived communally. To share everything that one owns with others is entirely consistent with the spirit of giving and concern for the poor that was a big part of Christ's ministry. Indeed, it may well be the ultimate expression of love and concern for others.
So, let's elect someone with autocratic leanings president. Gotcha.
No, not saying that. We were insufficient in the primary and some people really think the guy is anointed, that is immature but they get to vote. By comparison to Dems Trump is laissez fare. We have someone who has some great merit opposing someone part of an utterly evil party, autocratic in all ways. The lesser autocrat if you must call Trump autocrat.
You can see the autocracy in the Democrats but not in Trump's GOP? What's that parable, something about seeing the splinter in someone's eye but ignoring the plank in your own? This GOP is rhetorically more autocratic than the Democrats at this point. And this comes from the leader of the party.
President Trump says he's rewriting his speech to be more unifying. I was hopeful when I first heard that. Facing a near death experience can change people. However, when he chose J.D. Vance, my enthusiasm waned. I'm still looking forward to his speech but I'm not optimistic it will be broadly unifying. I hope I'm wrong.
Note I said by comparison meaning the degree is wide not that Trump does not have a streak. I also wrote consider Trump the lesser autocrat.
I understand. I see him as the greater autocrat.
Because Erick says it straight, and obviously lets the chips fall. You’re never going to find a substack that agrees with your every idea. If you do and feel comfortable there, you’re in a bubble, which is useless.
Erick seems to have joined a bubble.
I’ve actually been wondering this myself. Erick now seems almost all in on Trump. It doesn’t seem to resonate well with this passage from the book, and I own the book.
I'm just checking in occasionally until my annual subscription expires in September. I stopped listening during the primary.
Almost all in?? I too own the book and I’m not a Christian. I bought it more to support Erick. I hate to say it but and maybe this is in his subconscious but he sees the opportunity to capture Rush Limbaugh’s fame and the money he will make.
That is NOT Erick. C’mon Theirn.
I'm no longer sure. He's no longer an honest broker of information to me. He's pushing this line that the media (MSNBC, et al) is responsible for the assassination attempt. We don't know what this guy's motivation was. He is using his platform to get Trump elected. Not what I signed up for.
And now he gives $1000 to his campaign after poor mouthing about his financial struggles.
Erick's basing his comments about MSNBC from what happened to Steve Scalese. I think Erick has seen the Washington Post become a Hamas supporting organ and is appalled by the antisemitism of the left. He sees an open border and the scandalous killing of innocent Americans by illegals. He sees how destructive allowing an open border is and how feckless and disingenuous the left is about their support for open borders. And he sees President Biden as a supporter of the leftists inflicting all this on us. Erick has made clear how he feels about Trump, wanted Haley or DeSantis, but when they lost out during the primary, Trump became the conservative standard bearer, and, as a conservative, Erick backed Trump. I believe Erick sees supporting Trump is essential when the choice is four more years of whatever this mess has been. I do not see how Erick's positions on Trump conflict with the quote you shared from his book. His quote, I feel very sure, is warning everyone about the coming consolidation of godless human hubris and power scripture says will happen, where people will have to choose between living, working, and eating comfortably, in this life, versus refusing to submit to this future godless world government, and thereby suffering poverty, starvation, death, but preserving their souls.
Erick is not in a bubble, he is very transparent and can see and understand other perspectives he vehemently disagrees with. If I though Erick were a Trump sycophant, I would not subscribe to him. Frankly, Trump and the GOP need people like Erick to point out when they are wearing no clothes. I think there is value, Theirn, in you continuing to subscribe to Erick's substack because he is an honest broker of information. If I see him becoming a Trump lap dog, I'll beat you in letting my subscription lapse.
Vance seems to advance his knowledge on each day, learning more. That is the most exciting thing about it. My son Dan and he were born on the same day, and I’m trying to imagine my son as a VP (he’s a great young man, by the way). I like this pick because he is educable.
I was hoping that Trump would be bold and take someone more clearly conservative. Vance isn't bad, but he's more like Rubio Lite...every day, the wind blows in a different direction, and so do they. But I do like how the left immediately turned on Vance--they never learn, do they?
"Biden voted for the Iraq war and Vance fought in it." -- this might be the line of the campaign.
Also, love the shoutout to Aaron Gardner!
His first elected office is his present one, and he is not even halfway through his first term...
The parallel to Obama is exactly what went through my mind.
Never underestimate Biden's ability to f things up.
Never underestimate Trump's ego.
We are in an age were there nomination is believed to be tantamount to winning the general election. Only Biden can remove Biden, and only Trump can defeat Trump. Anything that does not help Trump win ultimate will be viewed as a component of why he lost.
Trump's biggest problem is his supporters are the least likely to vote.
Does Vance make Democrats excited to turn out for a demitia patient and haplessly Jamaican/Indian daughter of a slave owning family?
Vance / Obama comparison basically ends there. Obama did nothing in life up to the point of running for US Senate and the Presidency. Vance actually has business experience, military experience, experience being poor, and he doesn't resent his 'white' side.
LOL, that is fair.
There were no bad choices, but IMHO, there were better choices than Vance.
Some better than others but we are dealing with Trump who can be easily fooled with flattery. I do not know where Vance lands with that. He first got elected without flattering Trump. His change to support of Trump then seems genuine.
But on some policies that is indeed troubling. The Trump RNC had to be dragged to say anything about "life" in the platform, and then leaving it undefined and policy accordingly as flexible as they see fit. It is a demeanor that just wants abortion to go away because heck such a fundamental question scares them, their big donors who know politics so well, and they just hate having to deal with it. Same is true about marriage, "they respect it" but nothing defining it as between one biological man and one biological female.
Read into it what you will. A wink wink here and a wink wink there. They sure don't want to be beholden to those so-cons. That is the long standing preference of Trump and the RNC apparat in alignment.
As for social issues the women sports thing is an easy thing, there is little confusion about it, there will be limited ineffective resistance by Democrats, they are already folding. States could handle that as well but somehow that makes it in? It is supposed to say something to so-cons but it is a bobble.
The Trump brain trust's view seems to be let the Dems blast away on the abortion issue, ineffectually answered because ~~ we are going to win anyway on the border and inflation. Those guys were handed Dementia Joe, the political equivalent of being born on third base, and they think they are geniuses. Indeed they are so smart they agreed to debate (expose the guy unassailably) in time to allow the Dems to switch horses if they want. The truth is Biden is deteriorating so quickly, known to be for a long time that ANY of several challengers to Trump in the primary running a competent campaign would win. But the Trump apparat think they have a special feel for the pulse of America when America sees Biden's failing pulse on their own.
The problem for the pro-life movement with so many so-con's so easily going along out of false desperation (they should have demanded more coherence in the platform) is that the pro-aborts will still use the issue, it will comprise the Democrat campaign (they think it is key and there donor base is so into abortion they will go along with trying to make it so). While we will still win the presidency those pro-abort ads will scare support in the states where the issue is. The powers that be should insist on adequate pro-life response emanating from or fostered by Trump and the RNC. They don't care enough on their own.
A big problem is that the platform is too short. You cannot clarify or add needed nuance or rhetoric or argument. The fetish of grunts constituting a platform (redundant ones at that if you have read the little orange pamphlet) is counterproductive in its own way. Democrats can "read into it " what ever their lying evil brains conjure.
Note I am not calling for a national prohibition in the platform at some timeline as has been done but which begs the question what about a day earlier. More a statement to the effect of encouraging the states to advance the cause of life, protect life as much as practicable but never abandon the vulnerable at any stage as our pro-life administrration will also pursue. If you are going to be vague be vague in a discernible direction avoiding insult or sense of abandonment. A statement supporting marriage as between one biological man and one biological woman would not be punished in this electorate. It is vague enough (their fetish) but invokes nothing they won't be asked about regarding the meaning of the current rendition except the current one invites them to say - we support gay marriage. Marriage is marriage. They have engendered more conservative dissatisfaction than gained in liberal satisfaction.
The platform is confused and indecipherable on those issues probably on purpose but never underestimate Trump's opinionated ignorance. That the platform is given over to the quirks of a nominee is unbecoming a political party which should be transcendent and not simply a candidate's PAC.
At least there is a platform this time.
Trump could’ve picked oxygen as his VP and the left would suddenly hate oxygen. I’m fine with Vance - he’s not Kamala. I’ll happily vote for the Trump / Vance ticket. Trump did govern well - even if he has past character issues (who amongst us is perfect?). However, in 2028 I still expect to see a robust Republican presidential primary filled with many successful candidates- DeSantis, Youngkin and many others.