Here’s an article about Vance’s sit-down interview with Tucker Carlson. There’s a lot to it, but this quote jumped out at me:
“Said Vance: “We do a lot of interviews. President Trump is doing a ton of interviews with hostile media, with friendly media, with everybody in the middle. “
The difference it makes is that MAGATs who don’t watch or read anything other than right-wing media are being told by Vance that Trump is doing “a ton of interviews with hostile media,” and since they don’t expose themselves, at all, to what they’d consider “hostile media,” they’re likely to take Vance at his word.
Shucks, his idol and exemplar used the big one last year in a public speech, so JD is just trying in his own insufficient way to emulate him in potty-mouthity:
I had to break the link (rejoin you & tube) to get it to load – the “event” is at 19 sec.
Agreed. Instead, he comes across as “crass fake dude who’s trying too hard, says inappropriate stuff in hopes you’ll find it funny, and whom you wouldn’t trust to date your daughter.”
Yep. It didn’t even occur to me that, the way it was said, it could have been sarcastic. I did check replies (which didn’t say anything at the time), but I didn’t think to look for a longer clip or check for news coverage. Definitely my bad.
I agree; to you, and me, and the world, the truth does matter. However, the question “has he, though?” sounded as though it was being posed to Vance himself. I was trying to explain Vance’s thought process, not my own. He wants it to be true, so he says it, truth be damned. Hell, maybe he’s so self-deluded that he even believes what he says.
You don’t have ask for the category and value to be revealed in the form of a question.
If the revealed answer in the “logical fallacies” category was “JD Vance says cars seats prevent babies” I might respond with “What is an example of the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy?”