Talking about JD Vance, he said
And I gotta tell you, I can’t wait to debate the guy.
That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up.
…See what I did there?
The rest of his speech is worth a watch, to see just how good of a pick he really was.
You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
Honestly I think picking Walz will have far more impact than Vance, since Republicans will vote party anyway and the real hurdlenfor Dems to win is increasing turnout.
Walz will increase turnout even more than Harris’ excellent start to her campaign because they should be very effective as a duo both willing to dish it back.
It’s sort of baffling why he picked Vance - what exactly does he bring to the table? All the polling I’ve seen suggest Republicans don’t really like him, and that’s been Trump’s game to just get his supporters more excited…
Pence made sense, because he brought a segment that Trump has no connection to
Because Trump is a narcissist and needs to pick someone who doesn’t overshadow himself in any way and will be subservient to his every whim.
There’s not many options after those criteria.
It’s funny because JD Vance is overshadowing Trump. I see more talk about JD Vance than I do about Trump.
Trump needs the hate and attention, his supporters like him because he is counter-culture. Trump is their guy in the fight. If that stops then Trump becomes just an old rich white guy. This is why Trump plays the victim card every speech and talks about all the attacks he’s constantly suffering.
deleted by creator
overshadow
Well…
Hubris. They were up in the polls at the time and didn’t think they needed to expand their appeal, so they caved and took Thiel’s guy.
he was energizing when he was first announced, and he was viewed as an effective “messenger” in the same way that Walz is. Clearly the Trump & Co skimped on vetting JD ahead of time, though.
Fuckin epic.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
The link is not just to the video in general, but to the specific timestamp where he makes the reference. There is no original title for that.
It’s a primary source so there isn’t a title like there would be for a secondary source like a newspaper or magazine article.
Video title is:
LIVE: Kamala Harris introduces Tim Walz as VP pick at Philadelphia rally
One might more appropriately edit the title to read something like:
Tim Walz references “the couch” meme at Philadelphia rally
But OP saw fit to “ALL CAPS COUCH-F****R!” it.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I saw it. I know it. The title of this post is inappropriately editorialized.
You’re not the moderator of the community, so the “These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis” bit isn’t applicable to you.
I maintain that the live stream of a political rally doesn’t have a title, regardless of YouTube having a “Title” metadata field. As OP is directly linking to the primary source, the live-streamed rally, one could go as far as to argue that OP is the one reporting on this event to the community, in which case they aren’t editorializing they are just titling their own second-hand reporting on the event as they see fit.
Ultimately neither of our opinions on this matter, and regardless of which one of us is “right” we are both being needlessly pedantic. If the post is breaking a rule a community moderator will moderate it.
Since my reports do nothing here (I am not browsing from beehaw directly), we should see what those moderators have to say about it.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Reports should work even if you’re registered on another Lemmy instance, but they might be broken if you’re browsing from Kbin. Kbin’s federation is a hot mess and we’ve had a lot of issues with it.
I don’t have a problem with this thread. I was already aware of it, I’m aware it’s borderline editorializing, but honestly I think it’s funny and I’m not going to be a stickler when it isn’t harming anyone or making the community worse off. I’m more concerned with editorialized headlines if/when they are misleading or don’t reflect the actual contents of the article. If this starts to be a trend, we’ll address it, but as a one off it’s not a big deal.
That’s what I figured.
Late to the party. FWIW, I’m fine with the title for this post as well. I think @[email protected] has the right of it.
If you have issues in the future, please just report it. You can message us directly if for someone reason reports aren’t working. We have fairly active and attentive moderation here.
Awww is this headline too effective? 🤭
Well goddamn it. I was just having this convo on another thread. My main point: don’t spread lies especially when there is SO MUCH real shit to laugh at them for…
Edited from my other comments elsewhere:
JD is a creepy weirdo, but the couch story was made up.
I fucking hate it when people feel the need to make up stuff about someone who already has plenty of real red flags that need attention.
Yes it’s funny, and it’s working in the short term. But any lie, once uncovered, makes it so much easier for even the worst positions to be defended. ‘See, they have to make shit up about us, they have nothing’. Bam, now even all the other factual points are discredited in the eyes of many people who may have been on the fence.
You know the whole ‘fake news’ thing being thrown around a lot by one side in particular? It doesn’t seem like a good idea to give them more examples they can correctly point to when they want to discredit you and anything else you say.
Keep calling them weird, keep having fun with it. It’s fucking great. But use the real shit. There’s so much
to give them more examples they can correctly point to when they want to discredit you and anything else you say.
We’re about 8 years past this point. They will discredit you with or without you actually saying anything, so limiting your strategy based on the assumption that you’re denying them ammo is nothing but a self-inflicted handicap.
Everyone knows the couch story is made-up, and nothing here suggested otherwise; it’s purely an irreverent jab at a clown who deserves no reverence.
More importantly, (in all seriousness) is that the joke has taken off the way it has because Vance strikes people as the kind of guy who would actually fuck a couch. It’s just believable enough to make you actually check, because of who he is, where anyone else you’d dismiss it outright. It’s not that he’s really a couch-fucker, it’s that he’s a “couch-fucker-esque” guy. Which is almost worse.
And it’s brilliant to exploit that when attacking him.
Nah. It works. The fact that it isn’t true literally doesn’t matter. This is not the time to worry about what strategies come with the integrity of accuracy. If it works and has steam, at this point, we need it.
Fuck em. Flipper Couch-Fucker Vance doesn’t deserve our careful accuracy.
Also, like, have you seen this guy? There’s no way he’s not fucking couches.
Truth never mattered to Trump supporters before, why would
Iit suddenly matter now?I mostly agree with you FWIW, but I think this is an instance outside of it.
Nice. Sense of humor goes a long way
.jpg){kind=link}