An interesting tactic, to say the least.

[theweaselking]

So here we have Mike Pence making an unusual choice - clearly endorsing someone other than Trump. And why mention only three candidates? If you're going to admit that wannabes, no-hopers, and also-rans exist, why not mention all of them? Or at least make it clear which one you're endorsing?

He mentions his running mate (that's Trump), he mentions a "bold truth-teller" (from anyone else that would mean Clinton, but that seems an unlikely choice for Pence's endorsement), and he mentions the most dishonest candidate in history (presumably he means Clinton and is just repeating the standard lie).

So who's the "Bold Truth-Teller" he wants everyone to vote for, who he's supporting *over* his own running mate?

Comments

[skington.livejournal.com]

I think Mike Pence is being smarter than you'd expect, and the problem is that it's hard to fit nuance into 140 characters. He's clearly offering up a Goldilocks solution here, and acknowledging that a proper presidential candidate is one who manages to win the middle-ground votes.

So if you want to vote for a candidate who always tells the truth, at the cost of saying unpalatable things that will lose her supports, vote for Jill Stein. (I'm guessing that's who he's postulating as the mystery third candidate; he's hardly going to pick a candidate with any chance of winning, or who takes votes away from the Republicans, so that's why he's not mentioning Gary Johnson.) Or, if you absolutely must vote for a left-wing candidate, you could vote for Hillary, but she's a liar [citation needed].

So the only choice is someone somewhere between the two: someone who, sure, lies on occasion, but that's just a negotiation tactic you guys!

OK, so he got the order of the candidates wrong - rhetorically it should go thesis, antithesis, synthesis - but this was probably dashed off in a hurry.

[kafziel.livejournal.com]

Jill Stein says things that are untrue all the time, though. Like when she lends credibility to anti-vaccine causes, saying there is legitimate basis for concern. Or, this one comes to mind.

[skington.livejournal.com]

I think her anti-vaxx comments have been over-stated - she dislikes big pharma and gets in the occasional pander to fruitcases, but she's otherwise solid on the idea that vaccines = A Good Thing.

But yeah, on nuclear energy she's just nuts. Modern nuclear plants are safe, if expensive; it's the nuclear waste that's the problem.

(I was channeling Mike Pence in my comment, yeah?)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The problem is, she repeats anti-vaxx talking points, she "panders to fruitcases", and then she will never, ever, ever say outright that she DOES support vaccines, that vaccines are safe, or even that vaccines don't cause autism.

The closest she'll get is saying that in the past, some vaccination campaigns have been effective at preventing some diseases. She'll *never* say that vaccines are safe and effective and she'll *never* say that of course you should vaccinate your kids - she's pandering, HARD, to the anti-science crowd.

And then, y'know, nuclear energy. Where she's just completely wrong.

This makes her repugnant and completely unworthy of office, which would be a concern if she wasn't completely unelectable ANYWAY since she's not a real candidate and she's from a joke party. Since the entire purpose of her campaign and "party" is clearly to make her famous enough to do talk shows and sell books, of course she's going to pander to her target audience for those.

[evcelt.livejournal.com]

Maybe he means Vermin Supreme?

[drcuriosity]

That was who I thought of, too.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

#WeDeserveVermin