Is anyone asking you to?
From the last few replies it does sort of sound like it.
But again, I definitely take Babale and Buck Godot’s points. In my own way I’m fighting the same fight when I talk to my acquaintances about policy matters and choose to disregard the name calling. I just really, really wish we could collectively rise above the level of the National Inquirer when it comes to public discourse.
Would I kick someone in the crotch in a street fight? Maybe. But it’s not my preferred tactic.
There is a time and place for enlightened discourse. This ain’t it.
“Don’t wrestle with pigs. You’ll get muddy and the pig likes it.” Wrestling, maybe. But if your goal is to turn that pig into bacon…well. you’re gonna have to get a bit soiled.
The point of the “weird” comments isn’t to insult the Republicans. It’s refusal to engage with ridiculous attacks - like silenus says, don’t wrestle the pig.
They attack Walz for being an assistant coach, not head coach? Don’t explain how he never actually said he was head coach, or how assistant coaches are very important. Just call it “weird” and move on.
And seriously, these people are weird. If they want to be creepy weirdos who have no concept of what policy actually is why not point it out?
vance’s, Handmaid’s Tale, version of the U.S. is weird and creepy, that only scratches the surface of how awful he is. He is a creepy weirdo. trump? The guy with gold plated toilets? The guy who likes to talk about grabbing women by the crotch? The one who has no policy except for the helpfully written one by the heritage foundation, that guy? Creepy weirdo. Oh and project 2025? Weird and creepy Handmaid’s Tale crap among other horrifying treasonous garbage. It’s weird all the way down so why not call it what it is?
“Weird” and “creepy” somehow seem inadequate. If you want us to call it what it is, the most appropriate word is “disgusting”, though, in public discourse, it might be best to stand off from that word, as it might be seen as too on the mark.
Johnson, it’s said, wanted to spread the story that his opponent liked to have sex with barnyard animals. One of LBJ’s aides said, “We can’t prove he’s a pig fucker.” “I know that,” replied Johnson. “I just want to hear him deny it.”
This is a story that encapsulates the Republican/conservative stratergeee.
Sadly, as we’ve no shortage of evidence, R/cs are more than willing to really believe most anything, Pizzagate, Birtherism, most every claim made about the Clintons.
The whole point of this is to force your opponent off of their talking points and to make them deal with multiple brush fires that they started.
Given all the bullshit claim R/cs make I’m more than willing to believe that, as an example, Vance fucks couches and wants a three some with a couch and a dolphin. I’ll be happy to see it stop when they stop doing it and start setting their true believers straight.
And no, the response to,
“I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him and he’s not, he’s not uh — he’s an Arab. He’s not — "
“No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign’s all about. He’s not an Arab.”
isn’t anything even close to the response the bigots McCain was courting should have heard.
(Not that I have any notion that they could be shamed out of their bigotry.)
If they have no problem with spreading the baseless rumor that Harris is a DEI hire that cock sucked her way to the top I have no problem with spreading the, obviously over the top and in the end something that I/we really don’t care about, I have no problem with pointing out that they are both weird and hypocrites.
Yes, I won’t call them pedophiles or whatever (without solid proof) but, damn they are weird and creepy probably disgusting and evil, but they revel in that. They don’t like being called weird. If you quack like a duck; don’t be surprised when someone calls you a duck.
And, curiously, we keep seeing news stories that provide the proof.
If only there was a popular phrase that encapsulated that bit of reality.
I wish there was a thread or a reference sheet listing just who have been accused/charged with sex crimes. I remember seeing lots… elected officials & the GQP church folk… over the last 10 years.
It would be nice to have a table to refer to about it before all the denial starts.
And it will start. If they could profit from it and get away with it, they’d say that Pintos exploding from rear end collisions in the 70s was just a rumor.
Hitting them with names, dates, and facts keeps the coffin lids nailed down.
Mr. Stevenson, every thinking American will vote for you!
That’s nice, but I need a majority.
Engaging on a policy level is definitely something that has to be done. There’s a reason Kamala finally rolled out her policy stuff recently.
But you can’t convince people on policy if that’s not why they support the other candidate. If policy is not a priority for them, then any policy arguments will be ignored or excused.
The beauty of the “weird” tactic is that you are calling them out without engaging in the mudslinging. It makes it much harder to dismiss. It frustrates them, which causes them to make more mistakes.
It is widely held that one of Trump’s (and MAGA’s) strengths was embracing social media. But now the Dems are doing it, and doing it better, because they can more easily appeal to the younger generations that actually are good at this stuff.
Ultimately, what wins is a diversity of tactics. I’m all for @Llama_Llogophile sticking with the more policy-based discussions. But I’m also for the “weird” stuff. And several other tactics, like the sensationalist headlines that keep people engaged, even while they turn me off. (E.g. “Breaking: Trump Completely UNRAVELS in DEEPLY UNHINGED Press Conference”)
There is stuff I think goes too far, and I will directly tell people that. But “weird” is still very far from that point.
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way! And that’s how you get Capone Trump."
Listen, all I’m saying is that JD Vance’s dog is a good dog.
Having Biden as acting president should settle any stop the steal BS post-election.
If Trump or his Goons try anything, it’s perfect cover to slap them down… hard.
At the end of that speech, I’d pay real money to hear Biden say,
“Thus endeth The Lesson.”
I’m sure he is. But I’ve heard (people are saying) that Vance is going to shoot his dog, because Trump does not like dogs.
(Edit: And he’s going to find a goat somewhere and shoot that too, just for good measure)
Have you seen some of their policy ideas? They ARE weird. JD Vance has an incredibly disturbing fixation on whether or not people who are not him have children, and Trump is all about getting revenge for perceived slights and banning windmills.
They are weird-ass people, with weird-ass ideas.
I really feel sorry for that dog if it’s an English Settee.
Vance may want to avoid setting this precedent. All the evidence suggests Trump doesn’t like Vance.
There is another argument in favor of the weird attack that is obvious once you think about it, but hadn’t occurred to me until it was articulated in what I normally consider a to be fairly lightweight show on NPR.
The GOP has been coasting on the impression that they represent the architypical American. That White male straight cis Christian is the baseline, and that any other groups are viewed in terms of the way in which they deviate from that baseline. Calling Republican politicians weird, breaks that power. They are no longer the assumed archetype. Childless Multiracial female Kamala Harris is a better representative of what it means to be an American than White, male just turned Catholic Vance. Getting this view into the psyche of the American people is a win of its own, even outside the results of the election.