I read “Hillbilly Elegy” before he announced his run for Congress, and if this doesn’t get him, ahem, not elected, it should.
He knows Ohio and who he needs to get out and vote.
I can’t think of a public figure who my opinion of has fallen further (and faster) than Vance.
He also recently advocated firing all senior civil service employees and replacing them with “our people”. I’m retired now, but when Trump took office, my engineer and mathematician colleagues joked about the casino bouncers and hat check girls who’d be taking over our jobs. Five years later, it’s not a joke.
Seeing that Vance is leading in the latest poll*, “shouldn’t be elected” is more appropriate than “cannot be elected”.
*I’m not a math scholar, but this line from the story seems a bit off: “Vance leads Ryan 44 percent to 40 percent, which is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.”
Gotta love how this,
“Hopefully we get to a point where Ohio bans abortion and California and the Soroses of the world respect it.”
unspokenly assumes that the women of Ohio are obliged to respect whatever the state of Ohio decides about their reproductive rights.
If it’s the law and they go deep-dish crazy with it the women might not have a choice.
That’s actually a more carefully considered reading of a statistical figure than one usually seesin a newspaper.
“Plus or minus 3 percentage points” is applicable to both politicians’ figures. Hence Vance is between 41 and 47 and Ryan is between 37 and 43, expressed as 44 to 40 percent plus or minus 3. The poll’s margin of error is therefore sufficient to contain the possibility that Ryan is ahead.
That should be translated as Vance has somewhere between 41-47% and Ryan has between 37-43%.
I see no problems making it illegal for an Ohio woman to leave the state without a negative pregnancy test, or if positive, accompanied by a male relative that the current SCotUS couldn’t find a way around.
Well, durn if you don’t learn somethin’ every day.
Since I don’t know the current abortion laws of all 50 states, why would they have to fly a chartered 747 to California, and not, say, cross the border into Kentucky? (I was going to say Indiana, but I’m quite aware of what’s going on there.)
Because California and more sinisterly the Soroses of the world are two very loud dog whistles.
And to make it audible, ‘The libs and the jews want to exterminate the blacks so vote Republican!’
Kentucky’s no good. We only had one clinic anyway and it’s closed now.
I talked to someone in PA who said that Pittsburgh clinics are getting overwhelmed from OH and WV.
That’s correct according to my daughter, a nurse active in helping women get the medical care they need.
Black and diversity are somewhat lesser dog whistles as well.
His post is a turd with dog whistle phrases and words scattered through it like pieces of corn. It doesn’t actually make sense, but it sounds like it does if you read it quickly and don’t think much about it.
I mean, the first part says that Ohio hypothetically bans abortion in 2024. So far, so good. Then as a theoretical result, he contends that George Soros would fly 747s full of mostly black women to California for abortions. This is where it gets weird. Why George Soros? Because he’s a boogeyman to the right. Why California? Boogey-location. Why black women? Same thing.
Then it gets weirder. He claims this would be celebrated as a victory for diversity. Huh? That doesn’t make any sense at all. But diversity is definitely a boogey-word to the Right.
He goes on to say that if that happens, shouldn’t the Federal government stop it, because it’s effectively one state circumventing another’s laws. Which is complete bullshit- that’s part of the Constitution. States can have different laws, people can move freely between them, and so forth. If a state has tyrannical laws, then it’s not the Federal government’s problem to break its own rules to make sure that state’s citizens are properly tyrannized by preventing them from going elsewhere.
It’s actually pretty chilling if you think about what the second and third to last sentences actually imply, and it’s not what the last sentence says.
We should make a law to force other states to arrest and return people accused of any illegal acts in another state. If people break the law in one state, they are fugitives from justice in that state and should be returned. Whatever could we call such a law?
That’s not at all the same thing. If you break laws in one state and go to another, you can be extradited.
But if you go to another state and do something legal there, but illegal in your home state, it gets much more murky.
I mean, I’m pretty sure the State of Texas would have an awfully hard time trying and convicting someone for going to California on vacation and smoking a dab while there. I mean, what Texas law did you break? You didn’t possess it and nor did you smoke it in Texas. They have no jurisdiction over what you do in California.
Same thing for abortions- if you go get one in California, you haven’t actually broken any Ohio laws, as they don’t have jurisdiction over what you do in California. You’ve just got out from under those laws. And helping someone do that isn’t breaking any laws either. For them to extradite you, you’d have had to have broken Ohio laws and then fled to California.
The Fugitive Slave Abortion Act?
To be fair, Republicans want to exterminate blacks too. They just prefer to do it post-natally.