Trump's supporters tried to kill his last VP for not cooperating in Trump's coup atttempt. I can only imagine the target VP Vance would have on his back if he tried to initiate the process in the 25th Amendment.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Vice president debate tonight. Vance and Walz
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Trump's supporters tried to kill his last VP for not cooperating in Trump's coup atttempt. I can only imagine the target VP Vance would have on his back if he tried to initiate the process in the 25th Amendment.
That seems to be a huge criticism against Vance, that he has to pander to Trump and his big lie. Vance said Trump had a peaceful transfer of power, which to be true he meant only on January 21 when Trump's efforts of interfere had all failed. And after the riots of Jan 6.
The critics I'm seeing this morning are savaging Vance for being a chameleon, who keeps reinventing who he is and what he stands for. I haven't known much about Vance until he was selected ny Trump to be vp, but apparently has has morphed quite a bit. Vance has gone from calling Trump America's Hitler to not acknowledging that Trump lost the 2020 election. That's a far swing in 4 years. David Frum has called him thin skinned and untrustworthy.
We Never Know
No Slack
Vance never directly said it was stolen. He said I think there were some problems.
But yeah he can't directly answer yes or no.
-If no, he goes against Trump.
-If yes, he is part of the BS.
He was directly asked, and he directly evaded answering.
Yeah, Trump and his co-conspirators. All 50 states reported secure results, most of which were republican officials.
And by not answering
- he's a weak man trapped by his circumstances. That means he can't be trusted. A man of integrity would answer and be truthful. And we all know, Trump lost. It makes Vance look weak.
We Never Know
No Slack
Yes and he never directly said it was stolen
And lying for Joe saying he was fit when he wasn't makes Kamala look weak.
They both have to/had to say things that wouldn't go against their running mate.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I watched it in its entirety, and I'm glad it was generally cordial with Vance being a bit more eloquent. With that being said, Vance's saying he would not have certified the 2020 election if VP at the time stands out. He refused to admit that the election was fair even though so many Trump appointees said there was no evidence of sufficient fraud to put the election in doubt. And then for him to call what happened on Jan 6th "peaceful" was disgustingly dishonest.
How any logical and moral person can support him and Trump is beyond bizarre.
How any logical and moral person can support him and Trump is beyond bizarre.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
From Joyce Vance:
J.D. Vance did all he could to pretend January 6 never happened and that Donald Trump was a normal political candidate. If only voters would forget the 2020 election, Vance might get away with it. Walz asked him if Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance responded, “Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?" Walz responded perfectly: "That's a damning non-answer."
Vance said they want to win women’s trust and that voters want Trump to restore common sense. He sounded good saying it, but there wasn’t a lot there for voters who are interested in more than surface level appeal.
At the end of the debate, the issue is: Will it move the needle in any way? The answer is, not likely. The kind of folks who self-selected to watch it are largely already decided. This was the kind of traditional debate that is more likely to lock voters into their preconceived picks than to change their minds. Perhaps the awkward, painful minute where Vance tried to mansplain the moderators, repeatedly talking over them as they tried to limit him to the time he was allotted by the rules, might have some impact. What mattered so much to Vance? He wanted to lie some more about immigrants in Ohio.
Even if no minds are changed, the debate was still illuminating. J.D. Vance is as uncommitted to the truth as Donald Trump is.
Walz versus Vance
Thanks to those of you who came and joined the debate chat tonight!
joycevance.substack.com
Pogo
Well-Known Member
I watched it too, with difficulty until I found a source with closed captioning. My main conclusion is that Vance is a much more accomplished liar than Walz. I was also reading the NYT analysis, Vance either didn't answer or repeated more palatable versions of Trumps false claims and VooDoo economics (we need that expression back). The analysis flagged the majority of Vance's statements as false, misleading, exaggerated or at best needs context which why I couldn't take the audio, the CC separated vance's statements enough in my mind to get past the gut reaction.
Walz had a few checks, mostly for exaggeration or needs context and I don't know what to say about his poor handling of his Hong Kong gaffe, He should have just said I screwed up. He might have followed up with thanks to the media. His "thoughtful" expression was also not a good look.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When they interviewed people that claimed to be undecided before the debate one point that I heard brought up was that Vance could not admit that Trump lost and that switched them over to the Harris side. One caution, in one of the interviews with voters after the Biden Trump debate CNN got caught using at least one person that was clearly a Trump voter before the debate. Why that was done? Who knows. But it took awayf from that person supposedly changing his mind for Trump. So a bit of skepticism may be in order.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
I watched the debate. I’ll admit that Vance was the better smooth-talking/fast-talking salesman. Vastly more believable than his boss. 
Unfortunately, for him, as is the case with most fast-talking elitist CEOs, politicians, or other con-men; modern tech now allows us to go back and double check theirs “honesty”. Now we just need voters who are smart enough to utilize these advances.
I’m linking a good review Below. What really sticks out, is that just like the presidential debate, it is undeniable that the Dems make a few overstatements/exaggerations, while the blatant outright lies stabbing into the face of reality are spewed out of the mouth of the Republican.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/fact-check-vance-walz-debate/index.html
Unfortunately, for him, as is the case with most fast-talking elitist CEOs, politicians, or other con-men; modern tech now allows us to go back and double check theirs “honesty”. Now we just need voters who are smart enough to utilize these advances.
I’m linking a good review Below. What really sticks out, is that just like the presidential debate, it is undeniable that the Dems make a few overstatements/exaggerations, while the blatant outright lies stabbing into the face of reality are spewed out of the mouth of the Republican.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/fact-check-vance-walz-debate/index.html
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
While Vance ‘politely‘ objected to being fact-checked, I would love for all debates to be set up with a dozen fact-checkers, and only the moderators could lay out the facts, and the candidates could discuss their personal ideology for how to deal with the facts. All straying from the facts would get a single “Bozo” warning, wherein confetti and ribbons would shoot out, and a snap-chat big red clown nose would be edited over their face till the next question comes up. A second stray results in that candidate get a permanent Bozo nose for the remainder of the debate, and every sentence they utter being angrily challenged and fact-checked, with their opponent getting twice the speaking time on every question.
Or something very much like that.
Oh! And the debates are NOT optional. One failure to show costs 10% off your vote count (On the assumption that you are lying to the American public - for which the candidate must be punished). Two debate absences forces your party to put forward a new candidate.
Or something very much like that.
Oh! And the debates are NOT optional. One failure to show costs 10% off your vote count (On the assumption that you are lying to the American public - for which the candidate must be punished). Two debate absences forces your party to put forward a new candidate.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Pretty much what all the reputable news organizations are reporting. That said I liked this opinion from the Guardian.I watched the debate. I’ll admit that Vance was the better smooth-talking/fast-talking salesman. Vastly more believable than his boss.
Unfortunately, for him, as is the case with most fast-talking elitist CEOs, politicians, or other con-men; modern tech now allows us to go back and double check theirs “honesty”. Now we just need voters who are smart enough to utilize these advances.
I’m linking a good review Below. What really sticks out, is that just like the presidential debate, it is undeniable that the Dems make a few overstatements/exaggerations, while the blatant outright lies stabbing into the face of reality are spewed out of the mouth of the Republican.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/fact-check-vance-walz-debate/index.html
JD Vance’s debate lines were so polished you could forget they made no sense | Moira Donegan
Trump’s running mate had the greasy self-assurance of someone used to lying to people he thinks are stupid
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
I am not good at remembering details anymore, but he was not a good student, and not on the path to college in high school. He joined the Marines, under whatever name he was using at the time, and from there he learned how to get his education with 2 years at one school and then a program transfer of sime kind to Yale. His current wife helped him at Yale. In any case, it's spelled out in his book more clearly than my old memory is good for. I'm not dising his education, but just stating that he had the advantages given to the disadvantaged, and learned to use them well, if that makes since. It's sort of like Trump using the loop holes of the wealthy. It can make a murky mess of one's integrity, IMV.
Tells us you didn’t watch the debate without telling us you didn’t watch the debate.
What debate?