Talking about JD Vance, he said
And I gotta tell you, I can’t wait to debate the guy.
That is, if he’s willing to get off the couch and show up.
…See what I did there?
The rest of his speech is worth a watch, to see just how good of a pick he really was.
Vance has proved an absolutely terrible pick for Trump so far. It’s completely derailed his campaign and given the Democrats multiple new non-doomsday attack lines which they desperately needed. If Harris actually manages to win the presidency against all odds, people will look back to the Vance selection as the moment when Trump and MAGA started celebrating before they’d crossed the finish line.
Honestly I think picking Walz will have far more impact than Vance, since Republicans will vote party anyway and the real hurdlenfor Dems to win is increasing turnout.
Walz will increase turnout even more than Harris’ excellent start to her campaign because they should be very effective as a duo both willing to dish it back.
It’s sort of baffling why he picked Vance - what exactly does he bring to the table? All the polling I’ve seen suggest Republicans don’t really like him, and that’s been Trump’s game to just get his supporters more excited…
Pence made sense, because he brought a segment that Trump has no connection to
Because Trump is a narcissist and needs to pick someone who doesn’t overshadow himself in any way and will be subservient to his every whim.
There’s not many options after those criteria.
It’s funny because JD Vance is overshadowing Trump. I see more talk about JD Vance than I do about Trump.
Trump needs the hate and attention, his supporters like him because he is counter-culture. Trump is their guy in the fight. If that stops then Trump becomes just an old rich white guy. This is why Trump plays the victim card every speech and talks about all the attacks he’s constantly suffering.
Fuckin epic.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
It’s a primary source so there isn’t a title like there would be for a secondary source like a newspaper or magazine article.
Video title is:
LIVE: Kamala Harris introduces Tim Walz as VP pick at Philadelphia rally
One might more appropriately edit the title to read something like:
Tim Walz references “the couch” meme at Philadelphia rally
But OP saw fit to “ALL CAPS COUCH-F****R!” it.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I saw it. I know it. The title of this post is inappropriately editorialized.
You’re not the moderator of the community, so the “These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis” bit isn’t applicable to you.
I maintain that the live stream of a political rally doesn’t have a title, regardless of YouTube having a “Title” metadata field. As OP is directly linking to the primary source, the live-streamed rally, one could go as far as to argue that OP is the one reporting on this event to the community, in which case they aren’t editorializing they are just titling their own second-hand reporting on the event as they see fit.
Ultimately neither of our opinions on this matter, and regardless of which one of us is “right” we are both being needlessly pedantic. If the post is breaking a rule a community moderator will moderate it.
.jpg){kind=link}