mtutiger

The other part is that, for the most part, I haven't been seeing people say the word "weird" for the sake of saying the word.... they are saying it in direct reference to statements and policy positions that, to any normal person, are weird. I will say this, if JD Vance wasn't the VP nominee, I think it would be less effective.... but he has a whole host of strange positions and statements and if this is the means to vet those positions / statements and potentially tie them to Trump, they absolutely need to be doing it and not being paralyzed by fear of hypotheticals.

Josh Shapiro is so exotic to blue-dog marginal voters that he has a 61% approval rating in a 50/50 state with a middle portion that resembles Alabama. Which is to say, he's not exotic at all to blue-dog marginal voters, relative to the other options at least. Just don't agree on this one.

I don't know that it is clear what exactly Harris' Israel policy would be... Although one thing I do think is clear is that Israel's PM probably would be standing on firmer ground with the American public if he didn't spend the last 9 months poking it's greatest ally in the eye over and over again, while doing backdoor diplomacy with a former POTUS running for office once again. Israel isn't in a good spot here, but to a degree, its a spot they are in because of their own actions. They shouldn't be let off the hook for that when assessing the situation

Look, the body of evidence is there... you see it in how hard Fox is pushing back, how hard Fox is trying (and apparently failing) to get JD to clean up some of his remarks, and in observing the comments from the candidate's own campaign. I just think people are seeing this as a false choice where using the word "weird" is the entire campaign.... it really isn't. The clips from Kamala's rally tonight suggest there's a lot of substance to the message that their campaign is trying to present. But if your opponent has a weakness, by all means, they should keep going at it and make it a theme. Sitting back and being passive is much worse.

Gonna push back on this one a little bit as, in a lot of cases, it is being used to highlight comments like Vance's "childless cat ladies" comment, which is weird, exclusionary and, if you really sit and think about it, is a "deplorables" level comment in its own right. Dems shouldn't be scared of highlighting that, even in ways that seem unorthodox to how they normally address these things. Now, at some point, you have to pair the word with tangible examples of weird policies that the Trump/Vance ticket has been tied to or else it will fade away. But it's clear to me just by looking at the reaction from the Trump side that they don't see this as a positive. At all. It's the most off of their game I have seen them since coming down the escalator (maybe even more than Access Hollywood, which Trump just powered through at the subsequent debate)

lol

That's, uhh, a nice car ya got there pfife... Shame if, uhh, something happened to it

Not just with Twitter but also with TikTok, I wonder if going from Joe to Kamala messed with algorithms....

Also a big reason why the "weird" counters with pictures of gay/trans individuals aren't taking off: the median American, despite maybe some reservations around certain issues related to gay/trans rights (high school athletics being the big one here), doesn't actually *hate* gay/trans people. What a concept, I know. It's kinda "weird" how some people haven't figured that out in 2024.

Yeah I don't think it's going away.... Particularly the Project 2025 playbook still being operable.

It also manifests itself in a desire to turn Americans against versus one another versus bringing them together. At times, he has even suggested that our biggest enemies aren't China or Russia or other actors on the world stage, but rather our greatest enemies are from within. If there weren't real world consequences, I'd think it was pretty a pretty sad existence he lives. Incapable of love, incapable of joy or even the ability to laugh or show emotion.

One of the biggest mistakes these social media/online types in political circles make is assuming that everyone knows exactly what they are talking about, particularly when using inside-baseball jargon. It extends beyond the right (definitely see strains of it in the far left), but it seems like it's particularly pronounced with RW commentators.

This cannot be real....

Do you think the average American is going to go out of their way to figure out what Dave Rubin means when he says "NPC"? They just hear all that stuff and think it is weird.... just as they thought Blake Masters and Kari Lake were weird when they ran for office in Arizona during 2022.

Put another way, a reason why the "weird" attack probably works better than a lot of folks would to admit is because they very way that the Dave Rubin's of the world talk, using jargon that no one has ever heard of, is pretty foreign to people who don't spend a lot of time on-line. Which is upwards of 80% of the population lol And adding JD Vance to the ticket, who is a creature of that world, puts that out there on display and associates it with Donald Trump in a way that would have never happened has Trump made the smart choice and picked, say, Doug Burgum (like he reportedly wanted to but was talked out of by Uday and Qusay)

You realize that most normal people have never heard of the acronym "NPC", right? Which kinda proves a point, doesn't it?

Even Manchin thinks he's nuts

Really offensive...

Do I need to dig up my answer from two days ago on this very subject? That Harris has a record that she will have to defend, good and bad, but ultimately that Jesus Christ isn't on the ballot and this is a binary choice? I'm sorry that you don't like the answer, but it is an answer.

Rinse, Recycle, Repeat

And for whatever reason, some folks just don't appear interested to engage on it. It kinda goes to the old theme of "I don't like Trump, but [insert diatribe against some other politician]" meme that has come to symbolize the anti-anti-Trump class. It's inconvenient to engage on any of his flaws, lets pivot to something else.

I don't see how Trump being a private citizen at the time means that it was OK using his status as an elite in late 1980s NYC to whip up a mob against five innocent black men....

I work the construction field and am adjacent to railroads much of the time (haven't really dealt with railroad labor directly, but am aware of it due to my work).... the very nature of the work makes it easier for management and labor to row in the same direction versus other positions IMO. Take an IBEW lineman working for an electrical contractor.... they get compensated extremely well, but one wrong move and that employee can die. Obviously incentive for the worker, but also incentive for management, because dealing with a dead employee is a massive massive problem on many levels. Especially on the lower levels of management where one may personally know that employee and have a relationship with them.

I will say this for union employees, at least in the industry that I work in (as someone who has practiced in Texas and Illinois, I've seen both sides of this): Unions aren't perfect and the politics that come with them often create a lot of headaches, but in terms of training, union employees tend to be much more skilled, trained and work safer than non-union employees. There's a real tradeoff that exists between the two IMO, boiling it down to "they get paid more to do less work" doesn't really capture what I've seen.