Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

As far as I know, no school shooters have been immigrants, why are you making a connection?

I'm referring to a statement made by Walz.
I'm not making a connection, but I am pointing out a stupid, unacceptable, and dangerous statement he made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vibe from Vance was weird guy holding himself tightly in check to present as a calm, polite, rational conservative. Anyone who has not been exposed to the clips of the real Vance might be deceived.

Exactly. We saw the real Vance when he attached the moderators for fact checking and refused to say Trump lost in 2020.

I saw the clip getting again today and in it Vance looks even worse on repeat than last night. And it keeps getting replayed and recirculated.

Unfortunately all the viral re-watchable dramatic moments don't favor Vance. (whining that he doesn't want to be fact-checked and also being trump's stooge and refusing to admit trump lost in 2020. vance's "damning non-answer" is when tim walz looked fully shocked and disappointed. you could tell he hates confrontation and wants to believe the best in people, but at that point vance's mask slipped off.)

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

When you say app do you mean an application or a literal app like on your phone? I’ve seen the word “app” a couple times which is throwing me off. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigrants drive down wages and drive up real estate? How? Are they buying up houses with even less money than everyone else?

It happens when multiple households combine their income to buy one home. You have at least two families living in a home.

The rental market is also affected because there is less in inventory.

So what happened to the argument that they cross the border to hoover up welfare?
Or is the argument that they both qualify for food stamps and mortgage loans?? Or that they eat welfare food and pay cash for houses???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

Well if you can remember Congress tried to pass a bill to overhaul immigration laws but Trump had the GOP vote against their own bill. (Bill was introduced by Langford.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, Kamala picked someone who would not outshine her. And she succeeded.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vibe from Vance was weird guy holding himself tightly in check to present as a calm, polite, rational conservative. Anyone who has not been exposed to the clips of the real Vance might be deceived.

Exactly. We saw the real Vance when he attached the moderators for fact checking and refused to say Trump lost in 2020.

For all his silver tongued lies and smooth talking, that was a pretty big mis-step by Vance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with this Daily Beast take:

No one wanted to see two grown men in a televised slap fight. But Vance is a smart and articulate man whose primary weaknesses are his thin skin, his defensiveness, and his bizarro politics. He’s wise enough to lie about his bizarro politics, because it’s very clear that his actual positions are widely unpopular. And at the debate, his thin skin simply wasn’t pierced—because his opponent didn’t try to pierce it. As a result, he looked like a polished politician ready for the national stage, and not like the petulant, intemperate man-child we’ve seen emerge when he’s triggered. And until Walz finally found his footing at the very end of the debate, he seemed like a small-state governor out of his depth.

Both of these men are smart. Both seem to have sincere ideological commitments, although Vance is quite willing to bend his if it moves him closer to power. Both have not just broad ideas of how to make America great, but specific plans on how to get there. But that is where the similarities end. Vance’s plans are generally cruel and reckless. Vance the man is dishonest and dangerous.

And unfortunately, that reality simply wasn’t exposed on Tuesday night, for the same reason that Walz will make a very fine vice president if he can get into office: He is reflexively generous, genuinely gracious, and sometimes just too damn nice.

Yeah, this is basically my take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

Well if you can remember Congress tried to pass a bill to overhaul immigration laws but Trump had the GOP vote against their own bill. (Bill was introduced by Langford.)

Wow, so you are saying that biden and harris don't have any power as presidents? Trump can change the direction of the country? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, Kamala picked someone who would not outshine her. And she succeeded.

+1

It is called humility and respect. Unlike Vance who did his best to overshadow and outshine Trump.

[Anonymous]

No one is talking about how amazingly stupid Vance’s idea of selling federal land to developers to reduce housing prices. Almost all the unclaimed federal land is in a national park, national forest, desert, swamp, mountains, or other inhabitable place in the middle of nowhere. Houses are already cheap in the middle of nowhere. The housing crisis is in the cities and suburbs where the jobs are and where people want to live. There is no available federal lands in major cities. A bunch of states, including his state of Ohio, have almost no federal lands at all. How can Vance combine his cockiness with total ignorance of the topic at hand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

No, the point is that the system is complicated and overwhelmed, and that (like the tax laws) people adjust to take advantage of perceived loopholes. So you need a strong, nimble federal government that's able to make adjustments. The Biden administration HAS made adjustments and brought the crossings down SIGNIFICANTLY. They tried to make bigger adjustments thru legislation, but Trump blocked that for selfish political reasons. Trump's history was that he basically hollowed out the State Department and the ICE folks that enforce/administer the administrative laws, so that left Biden in a not-great position, and they had to staff back up and get things back on track. Even the desired, legal immigration went way down during the Trump years, because he is an agent of chaos that was unable to run an effective and efficient government. Does the app have problems? Maybe -- most apps do! That's why people then adjust and fix them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

So we have a process where Democrats can circumvent US immigration policy/ the intention of immigration laws and just fly immigrants wherever they want and flood communities? Yeah nice.
PS Are you "friends with school shooters" too.

As far as I know, no school shooters have been immigrants, why are you making a connection?

I'm referring to a statement made by Walz.
I'm not making a connection, but I am pointing out a stupid, unacceptable, and dangerous statement he made.

He didn’t say he was friends with school shooters, dumbass. He said he was friends with families of victims of school shooters. The Sandy Hook parents, specifically.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I get an unbiased explanation of the point Vance was trying to make with his immigration fact, checking? Was it that the immigrants came here illegally and not vetted?

Vance attempted to mislead about the situation by equating two separate programs. The Haitians in Springfield are legally in the U.S. due to temporary protected status. Vance referred to them as being illegal which is what led to the factcheck. Vance then tried to claim that they were really here under a different program that involves an app and which he and others allege is rife with fraud. Even that second group would be legal, so even if he wasn't discussing the wrong program, Vance would still be wrong to call them illegal. His point, I believe, is that the second program is so filled with holes that those coming here under it are de facto, if not de jure, illegal.

When you say app do you mean an application or a literal app like on your phone? I’ve seen the word “app” a couple times which is throwing me off. Thank you.

It's an actual phone app that you can download from the iPhone App Store or Google Play Store:

https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/cbpone

I have to correct one point from my previous post. The app is also used for migrants processed at the border to track them and arrange their court dates and such after they have been paroled into the country. There could be an argument that these individuals are not legal immigrants because they crossed the border without authorization. But, this is entirely separate from the Haitians that were being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Half of America doesn’t trust the media and doesn’t care about fact checking. I was watching NBC prior to the debate and Vance was described as a “father of two”. JD Vance is a father of three. I don’t even like the guy but I know this. When the national media can’t even get basic facts about a candidate right it breeds mistrust. It shows that the media is sloppy when it comes to basic reporting.