Are Trump and Vance really capable of going through life with their heads up their own asses as they claim and why does nobody in the “press” or media ever te

1. Public posture vs. literal capability — what reporting actually documents

Journalists and partisan outlets record repeated examples of performative rhetoric and defiantly framed statements — Vance “habitually weaponises social media” and defended offensive material, and he has made apocalyptic warnings about political opponents ^{[1] [2]}. That pattern explains why critics accuse them of being arrogant or oblivious; however, the reporting does not make a literal medical or psychological claim that they are incapable of ordinary functioning — it documents political style, messaging choices, and policy priorities ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Why the press reports on them the way it does — conflict, spectacle, and governance

Coverage focuses on clashes, controversial statements, and consequential policy moves because those are newsworthy and affect public life. For example, outlets chronicle Vance’s defense of Project 2025 and the ways the administration’s early executive actions track that blueprint, which fuels scrutiny from both media and political opponents ^[4]. The Guardian and New Republic frame these episodes as part of a larger MAGA internal struggle and a shift in GOP identity — journalists frame behavior in political and institutional contexts, not as private pathology ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Competing perspectives: critics paint danger, allies emphasize discipline

Progressive outlets and Democratic organizations portray the Trump‑Vance agenda as extreme and harmful — Democrats say Project 2025 would “rip away Americans’ freedoms” and cite analyses warning of economic pain and threats to democratic norms ^{[6] [7] [8]}. By contrast, conservative outlets and some commentators praise Vance’s blunt economic messaging and see his approach as politically disciplined and effective at communicating affordability concerns ^[9]. Both frames use factual claims about policy and political effect, but they draw opposite normative conclusions ^{[6] [9]}.

4. Concrete actions that feed perceptions of indifference or competence

Reporting shows concrete actions that generate praise or alarm: the administration implemented many executive orders aligned with Project 2025 early in office (a CNN analysis cited by Democrats argues over two‑thirds did) and Vance publicly warned about travel disruptions during the government shutdown, demonstrating active engagement on governance issues ^{[4] [10]}. Conversely, accounts in The Guardian and local reporting about Middletown criticize Vance for not intervening on behalf of his hometown when federal decisions affected local funding — incidents that foster narratives of neglect ^{[1] [11]}.

5. Media avoidance? Not found — coverage exists but is contested

The premise that “nobody in the press ever” challenges them is contradicted by multiple outlets documenting controversies and internal MAGA disputes: The Guardian’s critical profiles, New Republic transcripts documenting intra‑movement fights, NBC reporting on the Insurrection Act comments, and Democratic critiques of Project 2025 all show active press and partisan responses ^{[1] [5] [12] [4]}. If the question intends to claim total media silence, available sources do not support that claim — they show robust, polarized coverage instead ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

6. What motivates different narratives — strategy, ideology, and audience

Political actors tailor messages to their bases; Vance’s social‑media weaponizing and defense of Trump align with a strategy of loyalty and culture‑war signaling that appeals to MAGA voters, while Project 2025’s policy proposals aim to institutionalize ideological goals, which provokes resistance and intense scrutiny from opponents and some journalists ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Critics’ emphasis on constitutional and social risk reflects ideological disagreement as much as factual critique ^{[8] [6]}.

7. Bottom line for readers

Reporting documents that Trump and Vance adopt confrontational, at times divisive public postures and pursue a coherent policy agenda linked to Project 2025; those choices produce widespread media scrutiny and sharply polarized interpretations — but the available sources do not substantiate a literal incapacity to function in life, only political behavior that many find reckless or arrogant ^{[4] [1] [6]}. If you want to probe further, examine direct speeches, the Project 2025 document, and policy outcomes to separate performative rhetoric from administrative competence — those are the facts journalists are citing today ^[4].