politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I didn't communicate well. I agree they're both openly corrupt opportunists. The difference is that Cheney is also a good strategist.
If Cheney wasn't evil and corrupt, he could have made a really positive impact on the country. Vance doesn't have any useful qualities that I can see, unless you value shamelessness.
What makes you think Vance is a bad strategist and Cheney a good one? Cheney's strategies were unmitigated disasters if you view them as having a goal beyond personal enrichment.
If nothing else the fact that he has to come out in opposition to his own party a decade after his vice presidency proves he made major miscalculations on domestic and party politics.
Vance might be a creepy fascist weirdo but he didn't fall out of the coconut tree as it were, he's part of a political network and directly tied to MAGA strategy. I don't know how personally responsible he is for any of it but dismissing him as completely irrelevant to strategy seems a mistake. Even if he just repeats the strategies of others he's still made himself a part of the process.
I'd even argue that Vance is more of a strategist than Trump is himself, if only because he's provedly literate. He has direct connections to the kingmakers of the modern American fascist/technocrat movement and presumably wasn't just chosen for servility.
Tl;Dr the existence of Vance as a relevant figure in MAGA proves Cheney was bad at strategy, and if it was only about personal enrichment Cheney wouldn't have bothered to say anything.
Tl;Dr;Dr: Was Cheney actually good at strategy, or did people just say he was because they thought Bush was an idiot?
Cheney wanted to start a war in the middle east for personal enrichment, and he made that happen. That's a huge deal, especially given he was just VP. Yes, terrible for the country, but really quite an accomplishment. I have seen no evidence that Vance has skills beyond just saying what he thinks people want to hear (regardless of accuracy).
I see what you mean, but I think you're sleeping on how much Vance's personal influence has expanded by becoming a national name and counting some chickens before they hatch. I, for one, don't count him out yet as the potential legal successor to an obese old man with cognitive decline and I don't have enough remaining faith in America to consider making that play a bad one.
Here's hoping I'm wrong, and their side will have lost votes by saying the quiet points out loud, not gained them.
I still think we're taking past each other. I'm not saying he won't become president or whatever. There are other people who have done that without personally being great strategists or especially bright. I think Cheney was a lot smarter than the president he served under. Vance might be smarter than Trump, but I don't think that's saying much.