I think it provides valuable insight into how J.D. Vance was transformed from a devout anti-Trumper into the self-proclaimed Trump devotee, largely by the influence of Peter Thiel, whose ultimate goal is to replace our democracy by a technologically based oligarchy whose ultimate goal is not freedom for all, but freedom for the tech oligarchs to amass as much power, control and wealth for themselves as they can, no matter how many they have to hurt or marginalize to do it.
JD Vance wants you to believe he’s the ultimate American success story — a hillbilly who escaped chaos, climbed the ladder, and came back to save the country.
This video argues that story is a lie.
From Yale Law School to Silicon Valley venture capital, from anti-Trump pundit to MAGA vice president, JD Vance’s rise wasn’t organic. It was engineered. Funded. Groomed. And quietly aligned with a small group of tech billionaires who see democracy as an obstacle, not a value.
This is not a video about “hypocrisy” in the shallow, cable-news sense. It’s about how power actually works in modern America — how narratives are manufactured, how populism is weaponized, and how a carefully crafted origin myth can be used to sell people policies that ultimately strip them of agency, privacy, and control.
We follow Vance’s life from Middletown, Ohio to the White House, unpacking:
• His sudden ideological reversals
• His deep ties to Silicon Valley money
• The role of Peter Thiel and venture capital in shaping his career
• Why MAGA became the perfect Trojan horse
• And how “freedom” and “liberty” get redefined when billionaires are the ones using those words
This isn’t about left vs right. It’s about who benefits — and who doesn’t.
Once you see the pattern, JD Vance stops looking like a contradiction… and starts looking like exactly what he was designed to be.
Interesting. I'll look into that.
Question: what politician(s) at the federal level do you consider non-hypocritical?
Question: what politician(s) at the federal level do you consider non-hypocritical?
I would guess that few, if any, are entirely free of hypocrisy, to at least some extent, but I think none of them are more blatantly and malignantly hypocritical and venial than Trump and his sycophantic, MAGA Republican loyalists and appointees. I think politicians like Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jasmine Crockett, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are less hypocritical and more honest than any of the Republicans currently at the federal level.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Question: what politician(s) at the federal level do you consider non-hypocritical?
I would guess that few, if any, are entirely free of hypocrisy, to at least some extent, but I think none of them are more blatantly and malignantly hypocritical and venial than Trump and his sycophantic, MAGA Republican loyalists and appointees. I think politicians like Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are less hypocritical and more honest than any of the Republicans currently at the federal level.
Interesting. I'm interested in how you have come to that conclusion.
Question: what would you do to solve the illegal immigration problem?
Some are getting it. Trump courts got to experience the devastation first hands in Minneapolis, and they do not like what they see. Those Biden to Trump voters? They’re done with him. I don’t think scapegoat Bovino and Bowen is going to make a difference. Those hardcore Trumpers can easily scream for blood when it’s in the abstract, but when it’s their neighborhood that is devastated, it’s a whole different story.
I haven't done a deep dive into the situation (will do soon), but the optics look bad for sure.
Question: what would you do to solve the illegal immigration problem?
Define the actual problem first. Most Americans are opposed to illegal immigration in the abstract, but not in the concrete, when the offenders are their friends and neighbors. So what, exactly, is the problem to be solved?
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
Question: what would you do to solve the illegal immigration problem?
Define the actual problem first. Most Americans are opposed to illegal immigration in the abstract, but not in the concrete, when the offenders are their friends and neighbors. So what, exactly, is the problem to be solved?
Shame on you, Res. You ignored the presupposition and ruined the game.
Define the actual problem first. Most Americans are opposed to illegal immigration in the abstract, but not in the concrete, when the offenders are their friends and neighbors. So what, exactly, is the problem to be solved?
Shame on you, Res. You ignored the presupposition and ruined the game.
Not a game. I'm trying to get a precise handle on his views in detail. You are welcome to join, of course, as is anyone.
See edited comment.
But he (and you) appear to be attempting to change the subject of my question which is not a national poll, but personal views.
If you don't think there's a problem, fine. Just say so. If you think there is any problem at all, what is the extent of it?
Last edited by bill4long on Wed Jan 28, 2026 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think full-on open borders/immigration at this point would potentially be disastrous to America, but I'm also not fancy-pants smart. There's a lot of ground between reasonable and effective policies and no policies at all (and the trainwreck we currently pretend works).
I always liked the idea of folks having a clean record being allowed to easily enter the country and apply for legal citizen status, with the following basic conditions to apply:
No public assistance allowed for the first year after the applicant is granted citizenship status, with a 5-year ‘vesting’ period afterward, offering 20% of normal benefits in Year 2, increasing by that percentage each year until fully vested in Year 6.
Any felony conviction for an incident that occurs within the first 6 years of citizen residency (regardless of court decision occurring during or after the probationary period) results in an immediate deportation.
The approach would favor initial assistance through local organizations and family, and encourage new citizens to eschew activities that can put their citizenship at risk.
I’m sure that both sides of the issue can take objection with these two basic requirements, but they seem like a fair starting point in a debate about any changes to the system. Please note that as an aspie-addled moron, I haven’t thought this through for more than 3 minutes, and I’m not pretending to know how practical or fair this is under all circumstances. : D
I always liked the idea of folks having a clean record being allowed to easily enter the country and apply for legal citizen status, with the following basic conditions to apply:
No public assistance allowed for the first year after the applicant is granted citizenship status, with a 5-year ‘vesting’ period afterward, offering 20% of normal benefits in Year 2, increasing by that percentage each year until fully vested in Year 6.
Any felony conviction for an incident that occurs within the first 6 years of citizen residency (regardless of court decision occurring during or after the probationary period) results in an immediate deportation.
The approach would favor initial assistance through local organizations and family, and encourage new citizens to eschew activities that can put their citizenship at risk.
I’m sure that both sides of the issue can take objection with these two basic requirements, but they seem like a fair starting point in a debate about any changes to the system. Please note that as an aspie-addled moron, I haven’t thought this through for more than 3 minutes, and I’m not pretending to know how practical or fair this is under all circumstances. : D
