Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz is getting a more positive public reception than his Republican counterpart: More Americans see Walz favorably than unfavorably, contrary to JD Vance, and more approve of Walz’s selection for the nation’s No. 2 job, according to new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Thirty-nine percent in the poll have a favorable impression of Walz as a person, while 30% see him unfavorably. That compares with an underwater favorable-unfavorable rating for Vance, 32%-42%.
As a millennial bridging the zoomers and boomers I think what Walz really meant to say is Conservatism is cringe. If Republicans were savvy they could flip the weird narrative and embrace it because weird can be good but fortunately they are not. Can’t flip cringe.
Trump & Friends are cringe, gross, and absurd to me.
Conservatives value conformity, which is why ‘weird’ works so well to insult them.
It’s only insulting because they believe it is; call most leftists weird and they’ll probably say something like “Yeah I’m weird, fuck normal.”
You know that’s a great point! Conformity essential to being with the in-group of conservatives. That shifts my view substantially on this.
glares in Gen X
Classic Gen X’er… Boomer-lite hahaha. Ok sorry that was too far.
Y’all forgot we even existed, and now you deign to throw shade?
Gen x doesnt exist, they’re either boomers or millennials.
Depends on how cool they are.
(/j)
continued glare
Hahaha. I mean technically millennials are still the largest segment of the bridge connecting zoomers to boomers, but yeah… My bad…
But they can’t flip that narrative, it’s anathema to them. Between the “silent majority” bullshit and their fake idealized past (women and minorities knew their place, queer folks would get the queer beaten out of them) they cling to the idea that their view is correct and how things should be.
Don’t forget guns. These people went so full moron, that they straight up forgot that the original gun laws in the Americas was purpossive open carry only, no habitual open carry. If you weren’t a banker, a cattleman, a sheriff, or the like, or if nobody had threatened your life, and your jacket blew open in the breeze and allowed the public to see that you were carrying a gun, you would have been arrested for breach of peace. Because it’s fucking weird to show up at the bar or at a grocery store or whatever with a gun for no reason.
There are dozens of early legal cases in this country that prove these facts, and you can also reference the constitutions of the original colonies, none of which enshrined a individual right to carry firearms. You can also reference the Philadelphia constitutional convention where a version of the second Amendment containing an Express individual right was unanimously rejected by the delegates in favor of our current version.
The second amendment itself even tells you right in the sentence what its purpose is, and It’s “the security of the state,” not the individual. An individual right to bear arms does not redeem a state security interest, a ready militia does, though. that’s my Ted talk.