327

JD Vance’s debate lines were so polished you could forget they made no sense (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Trump’s running mate had the greasy self-assurance of someone used to lying to people he thinks are stupid

Maybe he thought the pink tie could help. JD Vance, the Ohio senator and Donald Trump's running mate, clearly set out to make himself seem less creepy at Tuesday night's vice-presidential debate, and a major target of this project was aimed at convincing women voters to like him. Vance, after all, has what pollsters call "high unfavorables", which is a polite way of saying that people hate his guts.

Much of this stems from Vance’s extreme and inflexible views on abortion, his hostility to childless women, and his creepy statements about families and childrearing. He had to convince women that he’s not out to hurt them or monitor their menstrual cycles; he had to try and seem kindly, empathetic, gentle. The resulting 90 minutes felt like watching a remarkably lifelike robot try to imitate normal human emotion. He smiled. He cooed. He spoke of an anonymous woman he knew whom he said was watching, and told her: “Love ya”. And occasionally, when he was fact-checked or received pushback on his falsehoods or distortions, the eyes of his stiff, fixed face flashed with an incandescent rage.

A generous characterization of Vance’s performance might be to call it “slick”. Vance delivered practiced answers to questions on healthcare, abortion rights and childcare that were dense with lies and euphemism. Asked about his call for a national abortion ban, Vance insisted that what he wanted was a national “standard” – a standard, that is, to ban it at 15 weeks.

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 93 points 2 months ago

It's a shame that stupid people are so easily manipulated. We shouldn't be so permissive and accepting of blatant lies.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago

It's fascinating to watch. Vance, the old-school spin doctor, using euphemism, misdirection and weaseling to not-techincally-lie (eg, we want a national "standard" for abortion, not a national ban) versus Trump who just goes all-out loud, easily disproven, total bullshit. And that side seems to like Trump better, like they've been trained to recognize the used-car-salesman shtick, so it makes them uncomfortable even if they don't recognize the lies, but the loud liar just cows any chance of disbelief with sheer volume.

I feel like there's really interesting psychology to study there, among the...let's say "reality challenged" population, if anyone could figure out how to recruit them.

[-] 4grams@awful.systems 31 points 2 months ago

as I have climbed higher in the corporate world, this is becoming clearer and clearer. people respond far better to a confident idiot than they do a pensive expert.

[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I was literally told this the other day.

My success isn't based off my expertise, but how confident I sound.

It didn't feel good to hear.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago

you know what else is slick:

snake oil

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Well...Vance is more like leather conditioner, but snake oil works.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

At least someone calls it out. Everyone else seems far too impressed Vance didn't make gay/tampon jokes about Walz at this particular venue.

[-] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Walz would have made a comment concerning Vance and couches back. Probably smart of him not to stoke that kind of fire, especially with how bad Trump looked vs Harris. But yeah, his actual words were trash and should be called out as such.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago

Fucking dumbass media - he wasn't polished or slick... he was smarmy.

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

That was kind of my takeaway too. I hope people get the sense he's a liar, but ultimately I imagine most of the night is forgettable. The main goal for Vance is name recognition in 4 years while also not offending Trump, and he kind of did that.

You know, I used to be a little like him when I was younger and that style does work when you have at least an ounce of charisma. But then I stopped being a fuckboy and started growing real relationships; being a smooth liar is a hollow existence.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

The Guardian has been pretty spicy lately.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

FivethirtyEight - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for FivethirtyEight:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/02/jd-vance-debate-performance
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/jd-vance/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024

327 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19244 readers

2241 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News