It’s like when Sideshow Bob was running for Mayor and used ads denouncing Mayor Quimby for letting crooks like Sideshow Bob out of jail.
Vance isn’t nearly as intelligent as Bob. But I did laugh at the comparison.
Vance is a Yale grad and a best selling author. It’s a good example of imposter syndrome; he’s better than Trump in any possible way, but lacks the intestinal fortitude to be anything but a lickspittle.
A lot of the GOP leadership is not stupid. Some of them are very intelligent.They’re just self-serving and morally bankrupt.
“best selling”
Hillbilly Elegy was a NY Times bestseller.
You can hate on the guy, but facts are facts.
Except that list gets manipulated all the time. It’s a known practice to order shit tons of your own book, get on the list for a week, and hand them out (or resell them) later.
Ok, I accept that, but it inevitably leads to the next question of “what metric would you accept to call oneself a bestselling authour?”
By definition, bestselling is what it is. The question is “does bestselling mean they’re a good author?” And that’s what we have reviews for.
Probably something better than “it sold more than 1000 copies in a week”. Especially when the author can indirectly buy all those copies with not that much money, just to claim the best selling title
I despise the guy as much as sanity allows, but he actually went out and accomplished something.
I think it’s important that we see the enemy as they are and don’t get caught up in mindless hatred for hatred’s sake.
I agree in principal. But my comment was made to point out that the achievement of “bestselling author” is just not as meaningful as it once was. Many people like him cheat to get on the bestselling list so they can put that on the book and it’s as informative on the book jacket as “made with 100% beef”. Seems nice, but doesn’t actually mean much.
Politicians use ghost writers for their books. All he accomplished was having enough money to “write” a book. The NYT bestsellers list is, as others have pointed out, very manipulated. It’s been a ‘joke’ for a long long time that people just buy their own books for the numbers. Political parties especially buy them in bulk to boost the numbers.
Every politician has a book. It’s part of the process, or the culture. You’re not a “real” politician if you don’t have a book. Even insane people like Marjorie Taylor Greene has a book.
It’s not an accomplishment. It’s just paying someone to write something for you.
It just means it sold a number of copies, there is zero judgement on the content. Sometimes a campaign will launder money directly to a candidate by purchasing many copies of that candidate’s book to give away. It is somehow legal.
He did it before he became a Veep candidate.
Before he was a politician?
Hillbilly Elegy was a NY Times bestseller.
Which book isn’t?
Literally millions of books haven’t. Have you ever actually been in a bookstore or library?
It’s like saying every song has won a Grammy or every athlete has gone to the Olympics.
It was a joke about how NYT bestsellers list is rigged good lord calm your buttcheeks.
TBH, I think a lickspittle probably needs quite a bit of intestinal fortitude
“That’s different! They’re white!” -his inner monologue
He immediately whataboutism’d BLM protests, so… yeah it was outer monologue too.
The problem is that hypocrisy doesn’t burn them. Logic doesn’t matter.
You’ll find conservative women against abortion who had an abortion, because “for them it was different”.
You’ll find them yapping about taxes and “big crime families” but when trump does it “he’s just smart and using the system like everyone else”.
You’ll find them fed up with “giving away free stuff”, when they all do sovcit shit and dodge taxes because “fuck biden or wtv”.
They have upper class money, but for them it’s different, “they aren’t rich” and “daddy technically didn’t even help”.
Theyre all losers who think all their problems are caused by other people.
You’ll find conservative women against abortion who had an abortion, because “for them it was different”.
My favorite article was about some privileged women who were shocked when they found out that when abortion becomes illegal, they can’t have abortions anymore.
Because for them, they were called “terminations”. I couldn’t make this up.
And then they had the gall to proclaim that they would have been the ideal people to show the importance of the matter. Of course, a matter is unimportant until it affects you, the privileged one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/27/us/abortion-women-tfmr.html
Zero empathy or reflection. Kind of impressive.
Yep. They lie and lie about what an abortion is.
You gotta be pretty incompetent to walk directly into that. Even if you’re not sure where the interviewer is going, if you ever hear the phrase “so you agree that…” you cannot agree with whatever they’re saying because that phrase indicates that you’re walking into a logic trap.
so you agree that…
Giant flashing “it’s a trap” sign.
Ficking idiot walks straight into it.
Yeah but they get away with it because their audience only cares/is fed the stuff they agree with
Trump said the government should be allowed to take people’s guns without due process (just breaking two constitutional amendments, NBD) and Republicans just had to wait a couple days and their voters forgot about it
It’s a trap either way. Like asking Matt Gaetz if he agrees children should not be trafficked and raped by middle-aged adults. Any direct answer to that would make him look like a pedophile.
That’s why you aren’t a politician (along with probably many other reasons). The correct response is something like: “there are certain actions that these protesters shouldn’t be taking.” You just totally avoid the question and pretend like you answered it.
Logic traps only work on hypocrites though.
deleted by creator
Pleasantly surprising to actually press even that hard during an interview. Interviews should be forcing candidates to explain themselves.
Can we get the actual clip?
CNN Post with video. Quote starts at 1:07 mark
I’ve never heard this guy talk so hearing his voice…
I mean, I’m not saying that I’ve ever talked to a couch fucker but…yeah, the voice sort of says couch fucker.
There’s a reason that rumor spread so effectively
The author of the tweet never even tried to claim it was true, either. When the couch thing blew up, they even specifically said that it was just a joke. You’re exactly right, though. There’s just something about Vance that makes it seem believable.
Well, if you’ve read any of his Hillbilly Elegy, it fits. He does this weird oscillation where he talks about his humble roots, and then is incredibly condescending towards anyone in a similar situation.
Apparently he’s better than that now.
He could talk about how he was so desperate he fucked his couch. But then, once he had money, he was able to attract an actual woman. He still occasionally fucks a couch, just for nostalgia, but all those other people who are still fucking couches are sad and gross.
It would blend right in.
Lets call it what it is. He fucks underage couches. That makes him a rapist. He’s a couch rapist.
He read of therapist couches and messed up the spaces in the words
Lol, that’s good
Is he an analrapist?
Age of consent or not, I’ve never heard a couch talk, let alone consent.
It doesn’t matter the type of material or the designer brand the couch is either, the couch isn’t “dressed like it’s asking for it.” Unless it’s enthusiastic affirmation, it’s rape.
I’ve never asked so I can’t say for sure that it’s not impossible, but I’ve personally never heard a couch speak. Therefore, I’m not sure any couch is capable of consent. Ergo, all couch fucking is couch rape.
I dunno about couches but my gaydar went nuclear at that clip.
But of course, he can’t be gay, because he didn’t want to suck dicks at the age of 8.
at least he isn’t a squeaker like shapiro or peterson.
Vance’s eyes look like the soul has vacated his body long ago
“well, you know… That happened three, ehh four years ago!”
Why did she not ask him if he organized any support for the innocent BLM protestors that did not commit any crimes? Why just the Jan 6 insurrectionists?
The little couch fucking shit weasel. He had an answer and it wasn’t half bad. Then he redirected to his false equivalency bullshit.
That’s the worst part, I agree with his point that we shouldn’t have blanket prosecutions…just like we shouldn’t have blanket pardons.
I think a good followup would have been “Do you believe it is also possible there are BLM protestors who likewise had the book thrown at them?” Bring it back to the question of why they think their “protest” is more acceptable than the BLM protests.
But it’s weird, that didn’t feel like a modern Republican interview exchange to me. Yeah he’s doing the soundbites but he’s actually responding with…logic rather than feelings? Or at least as close to logic as a Republican candidate can get these days.
The thing is, the MSM made it clear they are on the side of prosecuting BLM protestors.
The interview equivalent of stepping on a rake.
What the fuck is with the eyeliner lol
All forms of gender-affirming care are valid and should be respected
I respect Robert Smith wearing eyeliner. This bigoted fucker can eat shit, I’ll criticize his eyeliner because it’s a sign of his deep hypocrisy.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, anyone involved with national-level republican politics is either a bigot, or cynically pandering to the bigots (which is worse imo).
That said, I think a lot of people fear/hate trans people because they really can’t conceptualise what being trans actually means. Pointing out that if, as a 40-something man who has an embedded self-image of themselves, you find yourself going bald it’s not uncommon or unnatural to feel a sense of sadness or loss or unhappiness because your internal and external self images no longer align. You can then point out that some people might choose varying methods - everything from subtle changes to how they style their hair to full on medical interventions - to try and regain some feeling of control over their external self image and bring it closer to their internal identity. There is a straight line from there back to gender affirming care for trans people, and that makes it a smaller jump for people to extend empathy into a situation that they find so foreign that “trans people are actually just all pedos and rapists something something men in women’s changing rooms” is a more plausible explanation for them
I’m all for gay people and would never bring extra attention to them, but if I see a closeted homosexual republican doing gay shit imma give em hell cause of the double standards.
Is that crickets I hear? Heh wimp womb Vancey Pants.
Remember: they choose to go on CNN et al
This is fucking beautiful.
Bruhhhhhhh
