The GOP needs to convince voters that Donald Trump and JD Vance are regular guys, and, manifestly, they are not.
The GOP needs to convince voters that Donald Trump and JD Vance are regular guys, and, manifestly, they are not.
It would be strange for Democrats to attack the Republican presidential ticket for being “weird” if it weren’t true. But those men are getting weirder by the day.
Former president Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), is off to a wobbly start. A Harris 2024 campaign email sent on Friday was headlined, “JD Vance Is a Creep (Who Wants to Ban Abortion Nationwide).” The statement continued, “JD Vance is weird. Voters know it – Vance is the most unpopular VP pick in decades.”
It was bad enough when footage resurfaced of a 2021 interview in which Vance called Democrats “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made.” Things got worse last week when Vance offered a non-apology, blaming “people” for “focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said.”
Uh, okay, but that doesn’t help at all. The substance — which Vance said he stands by — is asserting that adults without children do not deserve an equal say in the nation’s affairs. Another unearthed clip of Vance showed him arguing that parents, when they vote, should be able to cast an extra ballot for each child in their family who is under voting age. He didn’t take that back, either, going only so far as to claim it was a “thought experiment” and not a firm policy position.
It's quite easy to explain. Republicans have retreated into their own media bubble, where they can mold their own reality based on "alternative facts". Their end goal is to project their reality onto the world and give it substance. In this bubble world, Donald Trump is the Alpha Male, and JD Vance is the everyman who speaks for the people.
Outside this bubble, though, Trump is a narcissist and criminal, and JD Vance is severely out of touch. The only way to penetrate this bubble is to shove the truth through it until it pops. Sometimes, calling things as they are doesn't get through the bubble, because it immediately puts people on the defensive about their choices. But call them weird? They might agree something a little weird is going on, and that might be just the opening to stick the truth in there.
I think this is why the Republicans seem weirdly upset by this line of attack. Call them fascists, they don't bat an eye. It's too complicated for their base to comprehend anyway, even if the would have had a problem with it. But call them out for being weird, and suddenly their base might stop for a moment and actually think: "Yeah, writing about fucking a sofa in your memoirs is a bit odd, isn't it?"
Exactly. For the longest time Democrats have suffered from the "bumper sticker gap." Liberal and leftist positions are generally more complex, nuanced and tend to require a broader intellectual background than conservative positions. This means they aren't easily captured by sound bites, and that makes it much easier for conservatives to capture and control media narratives.
"Republicans are weird" closes that gap, and carries a whole lot of deeper context in the form of the obvious response - "why are Republicans weird?" Suddenly there's an inroad to engage with deeper policy conversations. And better yet, Republicans can't engage with the topic at all without having the same conversation - "we aren't weird because..."
Trump supporters just have small minds; it's why they have been conned by trump to begin with. Concepts such as "liberty" and "civil rights" are too complex to explain and champion to them. Instead they understand only primitive things, like "weird" and "ugly".
One of my favorite things to watch is to see Jordan Klepper or someone from TYT doing their man on the street thing and asking some of the more radical elements some rather basic, but pointed, questions.
These people are a product of that bubble you reference and you get to see the bubble popped in real time, although I don't think they are fully aware of what is happening.
parents, when they vote, should be able to cast an extra ballot for each child in their family who is under voting age
And so it was that Vance was elected to the newly established office of Emperor by his own sole vote, after having symbolically adopted all of America’s unborn children. When asked for comment, he was quoted as saying ”Leave your couches unwrapped at the roadside, DC, I’m coming.”
I’ve had it up to here with people saying JD Vance had sex with a couch. How many times do I have to say there’s no evidence JD Vance had sex with a couch before people stop saying JD Vance had sex with a couch? Liberals must be pretty desperate to make up that JD Vance had sex with a couch. The story that on March 17, 2011 JD Vance was banned from a Cleveland area IKEA after so thoroughly deflowering a KIVIK Sofa Chaise that it had to be removed as a biohazard due to the various fluids in and around it, causing the night manager to not only quit but need intensive therapy is beyond the pale. Who would believe this? There is sworn. court. testimony. that JD Vance has not made bare skin contact with a couch within the past 5 years. That’s a fact. Look it up. The idea that this is because JD Vance cannot contain his overwhelming sexual urges in the presence of soft furniture is reckless conjecture. Calling JD Vance a couchfucker is slander and you need to take it back.
The Left™ will do anything to avoid talking about the real issues in this campaign, like the fact that Kamala Harris laughs sometimes.
Trump is really weird. Here's his shark story from June that he was regularly telling.
“I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight, and you’re in the boat, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery’s now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’
“By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that? Lot of sharks. I watched some guys justifying it today: ‘Well they weren’t really that angry, they bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were not hungry but they misunderstood who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said, ‘There’s no problem with sharks, they just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming.’ No, really got decimated, and other people, too, a lot of shark attacks.
“So I said, ‘There’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards, or here. Do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking, water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking? Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?’ Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer.
“He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.’ I said, ‘I think it’s a good question. I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water.’ But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted? I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that, we’re going to end it for boats, we’re going to end it for trucks.”
At this point the Navy is just going to tell him they took the batteries off the ships and do nothing. (Yes this is related to his tour of the new aircraft carrier where he didn't understand the technology so he tried to order the Navy to rip it out and replace it with the old tech. Which would have effectively scrapped the 10 Billion dollar ship.)
What in the fuck is he trying to say? Is this a metaphor? Is he trying to sell rubber dinghies to the navy? Did a shark and/or boat outbid him at the annual McDonald’s auction and this is a veiled threat?
He's too narcissistic to drop out and admit defeat. He agreed to the debate of Biden knowing he'd win, now he's dancing around trying not to reach the podium again to debate Harris because he knows he'll lose. He only plays to win, and he's in such deep shit legally that he has to stay in the running. His backs against a wall now.
Look, I run my mouth all the time... but I'm also not running for Vice President. I am a white dude, so there is a non zero chance that the Harris team might reach out to me at some point before the convention, but I doubt it.
So let's just imagine they pass a law where people get an extra vote for their kid, which parent gets the vote? Or does each parent get an extra? Because that wouldn't make sense. Not that any of it did in the first place
There's no way anybody's ear, especially at that age, healed that fucking fast without any scab or scar. It takes me two weeks just to get rid of a paper cut.
America is raised on celebrities and symbolism. They have the biggest media companies in the world. Idolizing singular individuals, putting them on a pedestal is what they do. It always has to be black or white, good vs evil, like in the movies. They want the good guy to win and get the girl. The art of american politics is to convince more than 50% of people that you're the good guy and the other candidate is the bad guy.
That's why the rest of he world is looking at the US election as entertainment. A circus and freak show in one.
It has the narrative of a Hollywood movie with real life consequences for people.
Does anyone else feel like the weird argument falls short. I don't feel like any of the people I know who like trump mind being called weird. They are some of the weirdest people I know anyway. I think they are used to it
It's good because it's purely subjective. The entire problem thus far has been that factional arguments, like "Trump is an authoritarian" and "Trump tried to start an insurrection" end up getting cast as subjective "alternative facts" anyway. The "weird" thing gets straight to the point and kind of short circuits the entire alternative facts thing. It's also "mild" enough that it doesn immediately elicit a defensive response like calling someone a fascist does.
This all adds up to creating a crack in the rhetorical wall. "Yeah, Trump is kind of weird isn't he?" Instead of digging in, it actually lowers the guard a bit, and helps breaks people out of the echo chamber.
Yes, but the gravity of the full extent of theit danger to the country hasn't been relatable enough for the general public. Now call them weird and suddenly people can relate. Democrats have been trying to talk about the forest, when all they needed to do was plant the seed.
"Yeah you know what, what he said is weird, what's up with that..and now that you mention it, what else have they been up to"
Maybe, but nobody cares when you call them facists so I’m not sure what the best move is.
I do actually think the weirdness argument does probably play to the suburban traditional values types who want to believe they’re the normal ones and everyone else is going crazy.
Exactly. Conservatives hold as their highest values, conformity, compliance, cohesion, authority, sanctity, and tradition. They love adhering to their established norms and standards rather than challenging them. They defer to those whom they view to be in a position of authority. They have lines they do not want crossed, things they hold sacred. To be called "weird" is to be called as existing outside the norm.
They are some of the weirdest people, but they don't realize it. That's why it's effective. They think they're the normal true real America, and everyone else is weird.
The top leadership is all "degenerates" by their own standards. I find this particularly ironic, because one of the biggest points of contention between red and blue is whether to be accepting of weirdness. The red aren't. But that doesn't stop them from being just as weird. They are just in denial.
Weird is really too kind of a term, but I guess being called Nazis for so long made them kind of proud to be Nazis? Or at least made them feel threatening rather than hilariously incompetent and ridiculous? I don't know, at this point whatever they can be called that will get under their skin and reveal them to be the incompetent moronic fascists they are, the better.
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Using "weird" is so absurd, the GQP would claim the same headline of their opposition. It does nothing but dumb down the argument, but maybe it does need to be dumbed down for people susceptible to bigotry and stereotypes.
Using "absurd" is so strange. It does nothing but dumb down the argument, but maybe it does need to be dumbed down for people susceptible to bigotry and stereotypes.
Sorry bud, but weird just isn't an insult. Weird Al Yankovic, for example. In fact, I can perfectly see people wearing "Old and weird" and actually being proud of it. There's no shortage of old people wearing edgy T-shirts, specially in the Trump crowd. But thanks for proving my point, the argument clearly has been dumbed down to the preschool level of just parroting things with minor ineffective alterations in an attempt to mock them.
I don't like Vance, but, I kinda agree? Parents have a greater stake in our nations future, and that should be reflected in their voting power.
Of course I think this should be solved by lowering the voting age, since that prevents abusive or absent parents from having that power, while still giving it to parents trusted by their children. But Republicans don't want that.
A) Having children is by far more common than not having children. If sperm donors/receivers are so much more fundamentally concerned with the future how did they let the climate issue become a crisis? You all have been in the driver's seat and you fucked it up.
B) I have likely another ~40ish years left on this Earth. Towards the end of that time there's a good chance I'm going to be reliant on people your children's age for, at the very least, medical care and possibly other elder care depending on how my health turns out. That being the case, I'm quite invested in the next generation being well qualified to provide that, thanks.
C) Thinking that people will only care about how things turn out for future generations if they have children of their own to care about is telling on yourself pretty hard. Kind of the same energy as people who think everyone would rape and pillage if they didn't have a fear of God keeping them in check.
This "problem" solves itself when you think ahead to the fact that children will have the ability to vote for themselves when they become adults. The simple act of raising a child to voting age ensures that you have increased your family's voting power, if that is your concern.
You know who else has a quantitatively bigger stake in the future of the country? Those with more money and property.
Kindly explain how a parent has a greater stake in our nation's future. A tangible stake - not some metaphysical "blood ties" or "descendants" stake that they have no tangible relationship with. Make sure that your explanation also doesn't accidentally give slaveholders additional rights for the extra "property" they have.
People care about their children more than random strangers. Often more than anyone else. Their children will likely outlive them. Thus the future affects the children more. If something affects someone you deeply care about, you're more likely to care about it. This isn't some revelation.
As a living person who intends to continue living for at least the next 4 years, I strongly disagree about who has a "greater stake" in the nations future... especially when we take into account that the party (formerly) of "family values" keeps fucking over the future for the present, so maybe it's all just a smokescreen to push whatever policies they want by pretending they're just thinking of the children...
The republican party doesn't follow any of its values, so you can't judge the values by the party's behavior.
Plus lowering the voting age would take away power from republicans, since young people skew left, that's why republicans don't want it, despite claiming to care about their children
This is remarkably similar to the "you need god to be moral, so atheists are all immoral" BS (and is coming from the kinds of people who claim the same). No, a person does not need to have kids to give a fuck about the future of other people, just basic respect and compassion for their fellow humans. "I only care about things that affect me directly" is Republican thinking.
Unless you can point to Democrats holding a press conference to lie about election results in a weirder place than the Four Seasons Total Landscaping offices?
The Republicans are a minority party of weirdo freaks who want to tell you what to do in your bedroom while trying to fuck underage honeypots in theirs.