In the 12 days since Ohio’s junior senator was tapped as the future of Donald J. Trump’s movement, old comments and a chorus of derision have blunted any sense of invulnerability.
While I appreciate the effort, mods are probably gonna get mad if you keep commenting this on every post. Some of the ones you commented on don’t seem like they’re totally about Vance
Edit: actually, the posts are all about Vance. Still, not a great look to post the same comment too many times.
I'm personally grateful to see this comment repeated and reposted a lot and hope the mods understand that spreading things like this is one of the most important reason to have an interwebs.
Many people are saying he did, but then some others have come forward to say he didn't, but those of us are just asking questions and want to know: "I don't know, were you actually there? How can you tell me he didn't fuck a couch"?
This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has even been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas.
The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get away with calling him a pig-f****r,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofab****h deny it.”
The man has never recognized an election loss, even in primaries where the result didn't really matter. What makes you think he'll recognize the next one?
The New York Times is so bad on politics. Obviously Vance said some terrible things and has some terrible views, but that doesn't matter to his hardcore followers, and it doesn't even matter much to people who are thinking of staying home. Nobody is going to listen to Democrats trash the man and all of a sudden decide that he's worthless, because of course the Democrats would portray him that way. It happens to be true, but one would naturally be skeptical of such a portrayal.
But hey, the Times really wants to ride that centrist bandwagon, that mythical position where they aren't pushing for anything except we all know they are, and all they want is more attention. I'm just happy that they put themselves behind a pay wall. Now there's no chance I'm going to read their articles.
It seems like it is useful to try to speak to the median voter and (supposed) undecideds who would be affected by this. There are lots of other publications with different perspectives. Is it bad necessarily that this one exists and operates this way?
He's not polling very well. The more the low-info voter types learn about this guy, the less they like him, too. He just comes off like a very creepy weirdo.
Let's face it: JD is just plain weird and creepy and comes off like a total freak. Like something out of a movie (or a book/show like Handmaid's Tale) kind of freak.
In addition - he looks like a total spineless jackass when it comes to him saying the convicted felon was America's Hitler, and now he's Hitler's VP. Imagine that...
Let's face it: JD is just plain weird and creepy and comes off like a total freak. Like something out of a movie (or a book/show like Handmaid's Tale) kind of freak.
“The fact remains that Kamala Harris is weak, failed and dangerously liberal, and no amount of gaslighting from her moronic, too-online campaign will erase her despicable record,” Mr. Cheung said on Saturday. “We’re going to beat the brakes off them, and there is nothing they can do about it.”