politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wait, so you don't order donuts by first stating your name, then asking every employee in the store who makes eye contact "How long have you worked here"?
Thanks to you I finally decided to watch the video of him donut shopping and it didn't seem that bad. Just some out of touch rich guy struggling to make small talk.
But nowhere near the level of couch-fucking weird everyone's been claiming.
So yeah I guess it would be better if he were a total sociopath and could more convincingly fake excitement during small talk?
The part that made the video bad wasn't his behavior, it was how clearly the staff knew it was a meaningless publicity stunt. The staff has enough braincells to know that this guy's policies, if elected, would do nothing to make their lives better, and that they are just pawns to make him look like he appeals to common folk. This is not something specific to this candidate, but his entire party.
They should've just declined him as a customer, or insisted that no recording at all could be done on their property. That would have sent a clearer message to him, unless you think the existence of this video helps the Kamala campaign because they will overreact to it and add it to the "he's weird" pile. I agree he's probably that bad kind of weird (I believe all Republicans are either so rich and selfish it is indistinguishable from being straight up evil, are racist, or being blackmailed) , but I don't see that being demonstrated in the video.
What they should've done was asking him about raising thier wages.
Good point. “Thanks for coming, we’d be happy to serve you, but we do not allow recording video in our store.”
That said he is pretty awkward ordering the donuts. He asked for whatever makes sense instead of asking for a recommendation.
My take on JD Vance is that he’s a talented guy who figured out that if he can transform into this right wing guy then he can have a career. Being a conservative catholic is part of that mask. The biggest tell to me is the timing of his conversion and the fact that his wife is Hindu. If he takes his Christianity as seriously as he claims, then his top priority should be to convert his wife, not respect her choice to do her own thing.
If he takes his Christianity as seriously as he claims, his wife wouldn't have any choice: she would be required to submit to the authority of her husband.
You’re missing my point. I’m talking about his personal relationship with his religion, not how he might impose it on others, including her. I assume he loves her and if he is serious he ought to be terrified about her salvation. But I don’t think that’s the case. I think he is not serious about his religion nor the other strong stances he appears to take. The issue of the salvation of his wife should be his most serious concern and if he can wave that away it just proves that he doesn’t mean anything he says. My biggest problem with Trump is that is a deeply immoral man without values to guide him. Vance was supposed to shore up the support of the right but he’s just as rudderless.
It is just an out of touch rich guy struggling to make small talk, but a particularly bad example. It's made worse because of his self-mythologizing of growing up 'normal' and poor and incessant talk of how if all "these people" behaved as they should they'd be where he is.
It's really weird for a national politician going out to shake hands to not have the charisma to have no more than a single question and single response and seem to have negative interest in the visit.
The employees at the donut shop did not make that call. The owner (who likely wasn't on site) made that call. I do believe the one employee had her face blurred because she did not agree to being recorded.
The Vance campaign should not have released the video, because even if it's not as bad as people are saying, it's not good and does not help his campaign in the slightest.
Nope, Vance’s team released the footage without blurring her. It was third-party news sites that blurred her when they reposted it, because she clearly didn’t want to be filmed. But Vance’s team 100% posted it without any kind of blur at all.
Sounds like a pretty open and shut lawsuit, then.
Just... throw it on the pile with the rest of them, I guess.
I think Democrats are trying to take lessons learned from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, applying them to properly defeat Trump. Those campaigns they felt too civilized and proper to stoop into Trump's tactics, and that barely got them anywhere.
To defeat Trump, we ended with an organic version of the "birther conspiracy" which is the couch-fucker thing. Getting the media all riled up with silly things so that Trump's distractions become meaningless is part of the strategy, the "but her emails" of 2024 is the "weird" thing. In both cases the Democrats don't have to be delusional, it's kind of tongue-in-cheek while the Trump campaign is having meltdown after meltdown over it.
A visit to a donut shop should be a layup for any campaign to look like they understand the common voter, it's not that Vance looked like a perv doing it, it's just telling that the Trump campaign can't even succeed in that.
Idk I just watched the video and my takeaway was that this is the kind of man who asks a waitress out and doesn’t take evasiveness as an answer. Maybe it’s not full perv, but it’s not not perv