Trump’s running mate had the greasy self-assurance of someone used to lying to people he thinks are stupid

Maybe he thought the pink tie could help. JD Vance, the Ohio senator and Donald Trump’s running mate, clearly set out to make himself seem less creepy at Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate, and a major target of this project was aimed at convincing women voters to like him. Vance, after all, has what pollsters call “high unfavorables”, which is a polite way of saying that people hate his guts.

Much of this stems from Vance’s extreme and inflexible views on abortion, his hostility to childless women, and his creepy statements about families and childrearing. He had to convince women that he’s not out to hurt them or monitor their menstrual cycles; he had to try and seem kindly, empathetic, gentle. The resulting 90 minutes felt like watching a remarkably lifelike robot try to imitate normal human emotion. He smiled. He cooed. He spoke of an anonymous woman he knew whom he said was watching, and told her: “Love ya”. And occasionally, when he was fact-checked or received pushback on his falsehoods or distortions, the eyes of his stiff, fixed face flashed with an incandescent rage.

A generous characterization of Vance’s performance might be to call it “slick”. Vance delivered practiced answers to questions on healthcare, abortion rights and childcare that were dense with lies and euphemism. Asked about his call for a national abortion ban, Vance insisted that what he wanted was a national “standard” – a standard, that is, to ban it at 15 weeks.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s a shame that stupid people are so easily manipulated. We shouldn’t be so permissive and accepting of blatant lies.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s fascinating to watch. Vance, the old-school spin doctor, using euphemism, misdirection and weaseling to not-techincally-lie (eg, we want a national “standard” for abortion, not a national ban) versus Trump who just goes all-out loud, easily disproven, total bullshit. And that side seems to like Trump better, like they’ve been trained to recognize the used-car-salesman shtick, so it makes them uncomfortable even if they don’t recognize the lies, but the loud liar just cows any chance of disbelief with sheer volume.

      I feel like there’s really interesting psychology to study there, among the…let’s say “reality challenged” population, if anyone could figure out how to recruit them.

    • gradyp@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      as I have climbed higher in the corporate world, this is becoming clearer and clearer. people respond far better to a confident idiot than they do a pensive expert.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was literally told this the other day.

        My success isn’t based off my expertise, but how confident I sound.

        It didn’t feel good to hear.