Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish Walz had been more forceful on the economy which is biggest concern for undecided voters.

Economy has grown three times faster under than Trump. Trump also inherited a national economy that was in the black from
Obama and created a trillion dollar budget deficit with his tax break for billionaires. Harris/ Walz have many more policy ideas to help the middle class.

BBC:
Between January 2017 and January 2021, average annual growth rate was 2.3%.
This period includes the slowdown and recovery of the economy as a result of the Covid pandemic.
Under the Biden administration so far, this figure is 2.2% - so almost the same.

One thing I can't figure:
Trump says tariffs on goods manufactured abroad, Vance said this will bring back jobs from the low paid workers in California. Tariffs would make those goods more expensive to Americans. But producing them in the US to get rid of cheap labor would also cause them to be more expensive. How does this work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Unfortunately, everyone has to admit Walz lost the debate badly. It wasn’t even close.

Vance admirably held his own but "win" he did not. Shouting over the moderators until they killed the mics wasn't good. Also he kept looking into the camera like he was sharing an inside joke with the audience. That is SO Hollywood. People don't look into camera lenses when there are actual humans in the room with them. That seemed rather scripted to me. Didn't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

The process that Biden used, while quasi legal, completely circumvented accepted immigration laws and policy.. Temporary Protected Status was created to bypass laws and is not how immigration is supposed to work.
Your knee jerk "white supremacist" comment basically shows your ignorance you regularly demonstrate when you lose an argument.

When was TPS created? 1990.

And you probably just 'discovered" it in the last two months. Who was president in 1990? A republican. In the intervening 24 years, a republican has been in the white house for 14 of those years - a majority, and no one complained about it until now. the GOP had plenty of opportunity to eradicate it if it had wanted to, including when Trump was in the white House with a majority House and Senate and yet he did nothing. Why do you think anything would change in the future?

My point was Biden/ Harris has abused it.

In what way? It’s been in place since the 2010 earthquake. Why Trump regularly extend it while in office if it’s an abuse?

Extra credit question: why did Trump grant it to Venezuelans if it’s so terrible?

"Vance, Trump had 4 years to get rids of TPS, why didn't he do it?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I think it’s fair he called out the moderators about fact checking, if the rules all parties agreed to was that they wouldn’t be doing that on air. Both candidates lied at times and said half truths, as do ALL politicians. Either the moderates fact check everything for both candidates or not at all. Otherwise it is bias to cherry pick what they decide to fact check.

Plus, they cut off his Mic when he was addressing a very import clarification.
Obvious media bias!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

The process that Biden used, while quasi legal, completely circumvented accepted immigration laws and policy.. Temporary Protected Status was created to bypass laws and is not how immigration is supposed to work.
Your knee jerk "white supremacist" comment basically shows your ignorance you regularly demonstrate when you lose an argument.

When was TPS created? 1990.

And you probably just 'discovered" it in the last two months. Who was president in 1990? A republican. In the intervening 24 years, a republican has been in the white house for 14 of those years - a majority, and no one complained about it until now. the GOP had plenty of opportunity to eradicate it if it had wanted to, including when Trump was in the white House with a majority House and Senate and yet he did nothing. Why do you think anything would change in the future?

My point was Biden/ Harris has abused it.

In what way? It’s been in place since the 2010 earthquake. Why Trump regularly extend it while in office if it’s an abuse?

Extra credit question: why did Trump grant it to Venezuelans if it’s so terrible?

"Vance, Trump had 4 years to get rids of TPS, why didn't he do it?"

You can be disingenuous as much as you like.
The point is Biden misused this to get the Haitians here and we both know it will be anything but temporary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I think it’s fair he called out the moderators about fact checking, if the rules all parties agreed to was that they wouldn’t be doing that on air. Both candidates lied at times and said half truths, as do ALL politicians. Either the moderates fact check everything for both candidates or not at all. Otherwise it is bias to cherry pick what they decide to fact check.

He was putting the safety and possibly lives of the people in Springfield at risk. The sleazy weasel deserved the fact check. Glad the moderators pressed the issue with him.

[Anonymous]

If Trump wins and dies, how is a VP picked? People are saying Vance will pick Don Jr....that's the big plan

[Anonymous]

The Hill, Politico, and CNN polling all said the debate was a draw. Also that Walz did better with Independents and emerged with higher favorability rating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Unfortunately, everyone has to admit Walz lost the debate badly. It wasn’t even close.

Vance admirably held his own but "win" he did not. Shouting over the moderators until they killed the mics wasn't good. Also he kept looking into the camera like he was sharing an inside joke with the audience. That is SO Hollywood. People don't look into camera lenses when there are actual humans in the room with them. That seemed rather scripted to me. Didn't like it.

His main audience was people at home. Made sense to me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Unfortunately, everyone has to admit Walz lost the debate badly. It wasn’t even close.

Vance admirably held his own but "win" he did not. Shouting over the moderators until they killed the mics wasn't good. Also he kept looking into the camera like he was sharing an inside joke with the audience. That is SO Hollywood. People don't look into camera lenses when there are actual humans in the room with them. That seemed rather scripted to me. Didn't like it.

On style Vance won...on substance Walz won

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

The process that Biden used, while quasi legal, completely circumvented accepted immigration laws and policy.. Temporary Protected Status was created to bypass laws and is not how immigration is supposed to work.
Your knee jerk "white supremacist" comment basically shows your ignorance you regularly demonstrate when you lose an argument.

When was TPS created? 1990.

And you probably just 'discovered" it in the last two months. Who was president in 1990? A republican. In the intervening 24 years, a republican has been in the white house for 14 of those years - a majority, and no one complained about it until now. the GOP had plenty of opportunity to eradicate it if it had wanted to, including when Trump was in the white House with a majority House and Senate and yet he did nothing. Why do you think anything would change in the future?

My point was Biden/ Harris has abused it.

When did the Haitians in Springfield come to the US? 2017. Who was president then?

Bonus question...what are Biden-Harris doing differently that you assert they are abusing TPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Unfortunately, everyone has to admit Walz lost the debate badly. It wasn’t even close.

Vance admirably held his own but "win" he did not. Shouting over the moderators until they killed the mics wasn't good. Also he kept looking into the camera like he was sharing an inside joke with the audience. That is SO Hollywood. People don't look into camera lenses when there are actual humans in the room with them. That seemed rather scripted to me. Didn't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Trump wins and dies, how is a VP picked? People are saying Vance will pick Don Jr....that's the big plan

😮

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I think it’s fair he called out the moderators about fact checking, if the rules all parties agreed to was that they wouldn’t be doing that on air. Both candidates lied at times and said half truths, as do ALL politicians. Either the moderates fact check everything for both candidates or not at all. Otherwise it is bias to cherry pick what they decide to fact check.

Only losers complain about the refs after a game they lost. Thanks for validating that Vance lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Trump wins and dies, how is a VP picked? People are saying Vance will pick Don Jr....that's the big plan

Yes but why would he do that? With Trump dead Vance would no longer be beholden to him. He would have Trump's absolute power though to do what he wanted.