this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
459 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19240 readers
3955 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And so it begins...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hazor 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I suspect (naively hope?) Vance would be less inclined to just hand over national security information to Putin, so .. maybe two benefits?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What about his behavior to date makes you think that? I feel like that sounds snarky but I don't intend it that way.

[–] Hazor 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

For all his faults and evils, Vance is not a narcissist who pathologically seeks the approval of those he sees as high status, which is what has compelled Trump to try so hard to be buddies with dictators. Vance is more cunning than Trump and would need to have a profit motive beyond just an ego stroking before putting his position at risk (even if the risk is evidently slight, but his relatively low popularity / lack of cult following makes me think/hope he'd have a harder time getting away with stuff than Trump). I suspect most dictators don't have much to offer Vance in the way of profit that he couldn't just as easily secure for himself as president without the personal risks of selling out the country to foreign adversaries, and the most salacious scandal we've heard about him has to do with a couch rather than Epstein so the kompromat is probably minimal or nil.

Don't get me wrong, a President Vance would be awful in a lot of ways, and arguably worse than Trump in some ways. It's just that I don't imagine him as being quite as much of a national security risk. But, again, maybe it's just naive hope. 🤷

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That's just naieve hope. He would sell out his country for a bean.