He articulated a feeling that had until then remained unformed: that I was obsessed with achievement in se — not as an end to something meaningful, but to win a social competition.
J.D Vance on Peter Thiel
Vance seems to be a vapid social climber with no real principles of his own. I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than an outright true believer.
It’s better, because they can be convinced to change their opinions. For example, Vance called Donald Trump “America’s Hitler” but since he saw being a never-Trump Republican didn’t have a future, he switched to gobbling Trump’s taint. He’d definitely switch to a pro-LGBT stance if he thinks he’d make more money doing so.
The true believers, on the other hand, are the dangerous ones. They’ll refuse to cooperate or compromise on any issue, and when they are on the verge of losing they turn violent. Look at the J6 coup attempt- all the ones who incited it (aka, the ones grifting off of terrorist edging like Alex Jones, Ali Alexander, all the GOP Congress members) changed their tones real fucking quick once the crowd started breaking into the Capitol.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m in no uncertain terms saying fuck Vance and I feel sorry for his wife, but that’s what you get when you suckle on the teat of the ultra racist party. I was only examining the question “In a vacuum, would you rather your opponent be a grifter or a true believer?”
I’m not saying I don’t agree with you, but sometimes it is difficult to understand this once we’ve seen Tucker grovel like he did and also knowing the remarks he’s made about Trump in the past.
That entire mindset is so hard for me to comprehend.
His book is a gold mine if you’re looking to portray him as a prick.
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.
Vance seems to be a vapid social climber with no real principles of his own. I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than an outright true believer.
It’s better, because they can be convinced to change their opinions. For example, Vance called Donald Trump “America’s Hitler” but since he saw being a never-Trump Republican didn’t have a future, he switched to gobbling Trump’s taint. He’d definitely switch to a pro-LGBT stance if he thinks he’d make more money doing so.
The true believers, on the other hand, are the dangerous ones. They’ll refuse to cooperate or compromise on any issue, and when they are on the verge of losing they turn violent. Look at the J6 coup attempt- all the ones who incited it (aka, the ones grifting off of terrorist edging like Alex Jones, Ali Alexander, all the GOP Congress members) changed their tones real fucking quick once the crowd started breaking into the Capitol.
That doesn’t make him an ally, or any less dangerous.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m in no uncertain terms saying fuck Vance and I feel sorry for his wife, but that’s what you get when you suckle on the teat of the ultra racist party. I was only examining the question “In a vacuum, would you rather your opponent be a grifter or a true believer?”
I’m not saying I don’t agree with you, but sometimes it is difficult to understand this once we’ve seen Tucker grovel like he did and also knowing the remarks he’s made about Trump in the past.
That entire mindset is so hard for me to comprehend.
deleted by creator
His book is a gold mine if you’re looking to portray him as a prick.
It’s worse, as true believers tend to be more predictable
At least when they didn’t believe anything, they’ll occasionally respond to pressure by caving instead of doubling down.
In Florida, the governor is going after any teacher who doesn’t write him a letter saying ‘you’re a very special boy and I like you very much’
In West Virginia, State employees have gotten a raise almost every year since the 2018 teacher strike.
And I’m pretty sure a lot of the difference is that him Justice just likes his money and staying in office.