Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024

[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

Oh the horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Jd Vance was rehearsed within one inch of his life and he had all his facial cues and lies memorized. But when Tim Walz just pointed out that Vance (the Emperor onstage) had no proverbial clothes, it was like Walz was Dorothy and threw just a bucket of water on the Wicked Witch and she melted. There was no there, there. Vance had no answer.

And the most important job for the VP is to oversee the peaceful transfer of power and Vance confirmed onstage that he won't do that. It was shocking.

Why would Vance be overseeing the peaceful transfer of power? He is not Vice President at this time, so will have nothing to do with the certification of this election. That is the job of the present Vice President.

Because moron, if he's VP, then he'd be doing so in four years.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of checks and balances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Jd Vance was rehearsed within one inch of his life and he had all his facial cues and lies memorized. But when Tim Walz just pointed out that Vance (the Emperor onstage) had no proverbial clothes, it was like Walz was Dorothy and threw just a bucket of water on the Wicked Witch and she melted. There was no there, there. Vance had no answer.

And the most important job for the VP is to oversee the peaceful transfer of power and Vance confirmed onstage that he won't do that. It was shocking.

Why would Vance be overseeing the peaceful transfer of power? He is not Vice President at this time, so will have nothing to do with the certification of this election. That is the job of the present Vice President.

Because moron, if he's VP, then he'd be doing so in four years.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of checks and balances.

Nope. There won't be any checks and balances with a President who is immune to prosecution, won't be impeached, and has no guardrails because there aren't any left. There really is nothing to stop him from declaring the next election illegitimate and assuming emergency powers...you know, just until the emergency is power.

[Anonymous]

It's amazing to me how people from each side choose to stubbornly defend the candidate they support. There was a clear winner yesterday night, but each side insists on claiming their candidate won. The debate, although quite interesting, did not change anyone's mind.

[Anonymous]

OMG, I was impressed with both. I don't know who won, but the losers were the Donald and Kamala. Vance and Walz should be at head of the tickets. I would actually feel good about casting a vote. Currently I feel like I might not even vote because I don't feel comfortable with trump or Kamala.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Oh the horror!

That would be a true nightmare. Both of their smarmy young sense of absolute righteousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doesn't want to be fact checked should be disqualified...what is the point otherwise? I want to believe my leaders whether or not I agree with them who wants to be gaslighted for 4 years?? I don't want to hear lies that make me happy. I want to hear the truth.

Politicians already get a bad rep for being slimy, smooth, not answering direct questions and outright lying. Vance acted like a exaggerated version of a "bad politician" trope last night. Vance was lying about obvious, proveable things (Donald Trump lost in 2020 (he did), Donald Trump peacefully transferred power in 2020 (he didn't), Donald Trump promoted ACA/Obamacare (he didn't), Haitian immigrant community in Springfield are illegals (they aren't), Vance never in favor of national abortion ban (he's on record and audio saying he would like an national abortion ban).

It was a crazy amount of lies on big, major, important significant things. How does Vance tell such enormous, egregious lies with such ...ease??

It's chilling.

[Anonymous]

And the carousel of Republican respectability moves forward. Every year we get to hear about how the Republicans of yesteryear were actually the normal good ones and the current ones are "scary" "fascist" "chilling." It's been going on since W when I was a young teen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people from each side choose to stubbornly defend the candidate they support. There was a clear winner yesterday night, but each side insists on claiming their candidate won. The debate, although quite interesting, did not change anyone's mind.

clear winner on what?

on style and delivery, vance was better.

on substance and accuracy, walz was better.

on big knock-out punches, there was only one. walz landed it in the final moment of the debate.

on bad behavior, there was only one instance, when vance whined to moderators after being fact-checked that he prepared for the debate assuming he wouldn't get fact-checked.

on first half of the debate (including opening), vance did better.

on second half of debate (including closing), walz did better.

on who was overall better according to pundits, most said a tie, some said vance.

on who was overall better according to regular people focus group, most said tie, some said walz.

on who won over more independents, walz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people from each side choose to stubbornly defend the candidate they support. There was a clear winner yesterday night, but each side insists on claiming their candidate won. The debate, although quite interesting, did not change anyone's mind.

clear winner on what?

on style and delivery, vance was better.

on substance and accuracy, walz was better.

on big knock-out punches, there was only one. walz landed it in the final moment of the debate.

on bad behavior, there was only one instance, when vance whined to moderators after being fact-checked that he prepared for the debate assuming he wouldn't get fact-checked.

on first half of the debate (including opening), vance did better.

on second half of debate (including closing), walz did better.

on who was overall better according to pundits, most said a tie, some said vance.

on who was overall better according to regular people focus group, most said tie, some said walz.

on who won over more independents, walz.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, the Haitians in Springfield came when Trump was president. I bet that you will embrace them now, right?

Uh, if you can't grasp the massive millions of illegal immigrants that have crossed our borders that is DIRECTLY the fault of Biden, I can't help your stupid ass.

Resorting to name calling when being called out not only on your initial false assertion but each additional false assertion when called out is a "look."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people from each side choose to stubbornly defend the candidate they support. There was a clear winner yesterday night, but each side insists on claiming their candidate won. The debate, although quite interesting, did not change anyone's mind.

clear winner on what?

on style and delivery, vance was better.

on substance and accuracy, walz was better.

on big knock-out punches, there was only one. walz landed it in the final moment of the debate.

on bad behavior, there was only one instance, when vance whined to moderators after being fact-checked that he prepared for the debate assuming he wouldn't get fact-checked.

on first half of the debate (including opening), vance did better.

on second half of debate (including closing), walz did better.

on who was overall better according to pundits, most said a tie, some said vance.

on who was overall better according to regular people focus group, most said tie, some said walz.

on who won over more independents, walz.

+1

Vance did a really good job lying.

That doesn't mean he won the debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

He had run at least 45 seconds over time at that point. He should have made his case sooner rather than abusing the rules you claim to adhere to,

Apparently the rules weren’t really real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, the Haitians in Springfield came when Trump was president. I bet that you will embrace them now, right?

Uh, if you can't grasp the massive millions of illegal immigrants that have crossed our borders that is DIRECTLY the fault of Biden, I can't help your stupid ass.

You need to get a better source.

You need to grasp reality

Understand, you made a false assertion about TPS about the "abuse" of TPS and then specifically about Biden and TPS. All three of your posts were lies. Maybe you should look for new sources of information, since the once you appear to be relying upon are not accurate or factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Jd Vance was rehearsed within one inch of his life and he had all his facial cues and lies memorized. But when Tim Walz just pointed out that Vance (the Emperor onstage) had no proverbial clothes, it was like Walz was Dorothy and threw just a bucket of water on the Wicked Witch and she melted. There was no there, there. Vance had no answer.

And the most important job for the VP is to oversee the peaceful transfer of power and Vance confirmed onstage that he won't do that. It was shocking.

Why would Vance be overseeing the peaceful transfer of power? He is not Vice President at this time, so will have nothing to do with the certification of this election. That is the job of the present Vice President.

What office is he running for, that he would presumably be holding on January 6, 2029?