Vice president debate tonight. Vance and Walz

[We Never Know]

Didn't find a thread in search so...

Who is going to watch it?

How many times will cats be brought up?

 

[We Never Know]

Well that wasn't as bad as I expected but I have to give this one to Vance.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well that wasn't as bad as I expected but I have to give this one to Vance.

I agree. I think he did very well, and I didn't really care for him to begin with. I think he's winning me over with those pretty blue eyes... Lol.

But more seriously, I do think he carried himself well and choosing to be cordial really helped.

 

[We Never Know]

I agree. I think he did very well, and I didn't really care for him to begin with. I think he's winning me over with those pretty blue eyes... Lol.

But more seriously, I do think he carried himself well and choosing to be cordial really helped.

He did very well. The whole debate was respectful and they even complimented each other several times with their statements and agreements.
Maybe their running mates should take note and follow suit.

 

[F1fan]

I watched it. A good debate and performances by both. Vance was personable so that was good for him. The two seemed to have a good rapport. I didn't hear any new answers that what I've heard before so I can't say anyone won. Vance was smoother and more natural as a speaker, but I think Harris/Walz has the better platform for the nation. The one negative for Vance was that he wouldn't acknowledge that Trump lost in 2020.

 

[We Never Know]

I watched it. A good debate and performances by both. Vance was personable so that was good for him. The two seemed to have a good rapport. I didn't hear any new answers that what I've heard before so I can't say anyone won. Vance was smoother and more natural as a speaker, but I think Harris/Walz has the better platform for the nation. The one negative for Vance was that he wouldn't acknowledge that Trump lost in 2020.

Both did well. Vance was calm where Walz was a little jittery.
Both pretty much stuck to the questions and the mods were fair.
Overall I give it to Vance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that wasn't as bad as I expected but I have to give this one to Vance.

Really? He still lied far more than Walz did, but just because he did not **** the bed like Trump did that does not make him the winner.

I will admit that he did a bit better than I thought that he would.

 

[We Never Know]

I agree. I think he did very well, and I didn't really care for him to begin with. I think he's winning me over with those pretty blue eyes... Lol.

But more seriously, I do think he carried himself well and choosing to be cordial really helped.

One thing that impressed me, they both stayed on point. There was no veering off on stupidity and scare tactics of cats and project 2025.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing that impressed me, they both stayed on point. There was on veering off on stupidity and scare tactics of cats and project 2025.

They both got off point a bit when the questions were uncomfortable, but it was nowhere near as bad as Trump.

 

[Spice]

Both did well. Vance was calm where Walz was a little jittery.
Both pretty much stuck to the questions and the mods were fair.
Overall I give it to Vance.

As far as debate etiquette, I give it to Walz. He used his time and watched clock and was the most direct in answering the questions asked.

For inserting "political points" I'll have to give it to Vance. He hit most of the Harris targeting, even it Walz had the deepest cut with Trump's election denial.

It was a good showcase for the type of men they each are. I just wonder if the majority can discern genuine vs. wool. I'd like to believe Vance was real, but if so, he has played the Trump family smoothly to get a hand up in his political career. He definitely was not a Donald little-me as he is on the trail.

 

[We Never Know]

As far as debate etiquette, I give it to Walz. He used his time and watched clock and was the most direct in answering the questions asked.

For inserting "political points" I'll have to give it to Vance. He hit most of the Harris targeting, even it Walz had the deepest cut with Trump's election denial.

It was a good showcase for the type of men they each are. I just wonder if the majority can discern genuine vs. wool. I'd like to believe Vance was real, but if so, he has played the Trump family smoothly to get a hand up in his political career. He definitely was not a Donald little-me as he is on the trail.

If those two were the presidential candidates, based off that debate I would vote Vance.

 

[F1fan]

If those two were the presidential candidates, based off that debate I would vote Vance.

If Trump/Vance wins I would feel more comfortable with Vance than Trump, so maybe they could use the 25th amendment by February 2025. Unfortunately for Vance is that he has a huge anchor chained around his neck in the form of Trump.

 

[Spice]

If those two were the presidential candidates, based off that debate I would vote Vance.

If "just" on the debate, maybe. I read his book. I've followed his campaign, though honestly not as closely as I would have if he wasn't tied to Trump. I don't think he's genuine. I'm just not sure which JD is closer to being the real one...the one who was a never-Trumper, or the one who switched political parties, became friends with Don Jr., and found himself as second on Trump's ticket? He learned to "play the system" at a very young age, (changing his surname a couple of times to his advantage) put it use for college, in college, and ever since.

 

[Pogo]

I watched it. A good debate and performances by both. Vance was personable so that was good for him. The two seemed to have a good rapport. I didn't hear any new answers that what I've heard before so I can't say anyone won. Vance was smoother and more natural as a speaker, but I think Harris/Walz has the better platform for the nation. The one negative for Vance was that he wouldn't acknowledge that Trump lost in 2020.

Reading the commentary while watching, about every other comment by Vance was flagged as misleading, exaggerated, needs context and even a few false. Vance in summary, it is all those evil migrants and Harris not running the country for the last 4 years. Oh he did promise to release a report to show how evil the migrants stealing housing were, that one got flagged as misleading or false maybe we will find out what it was soon.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to make the whole country into the utopia that is Minnesota.

 

[We Never Know]

He learned to "play the system" at a very young age,

Politicians do that. Biden has been doing it since he was 30(1972 elected to the senate)

(changing his surname a couple of times to his advantage) put it use for college, in college, and ever since.

New to me. Examples?

 

[Augustus]

I saw 5 mins while I was making a drink at work.

Vance was far better in those 5 mins, especially in a manner that would appeal to many swing voters.

(Was about economy and offshoring jobs)

 

[Watchmen]

Was super refreshing. Most instant polls I’ve seen had Vance as the winner. But let’s not forget his extremist views. He may be cordial and articulate, but he’s MAGA all the way now (too bad he isn’t still the guy who wrote the book).

 

[crossfire]

I missed the first 15 minutes of it, but I listened to the rest. Both were cordial, although Vance did get a little persnickety when he said, "no fact-checking." That just drowned any credibility he might have built, imo.

 

[We Never Know]

I missed the first 15 minutes of it, but I listened to the rest. Both were cordial, although Vance did get a little persnickety when he said, "no fact-checking." That just drowned any credibility he might have built, imo.

I dont recall that but was he saying it as to not do it or why not do it? CBS had already said this...

"Prior to the debate, CBS News had said it would be up to the two candidates — not moderators Brennan and Norah O'Donnell — to fact-check each other and the journalists would encourage them to do so. Vance said that it appeared CBS News was breaking the rules it had set down."

Fact-check fight: CBS News cuts candidates' mics after JD Vance objects to a moderator's correction

CBS News briefly muted the debate microphones of the two vice presidential candidates after Republican JD Vance objected to a fact-check made by Margaret Brennan, one of the network's moderators

abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[Revoltingest]

From the perspective of never watching debates....
It's interesting how much weight people give to
personality & performance on stage.
What I noticed in summaries was that Vance still
claims Biden stole the election from Trump.
If he's not lying, this shows a dangerous divorce
from reality. Otherwise it's merely dangerous
corruption.