Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question—does anyone think Vance said the stuff about cat ladies, and the Haitian stuff.. in order for the media to focus on him being a ridiculous And just as weird ‘Trump’ with the knowledge he’d catch people by surprise as the underdog in this debate?

Debates are 75% performance. And regardless of what you think of Vance’s answers/non-answers.. he was clearly much more wellspoken than Walz.

I know many of you will be quick to call out his many lies and non-answers… but that’s not the kind of stuff… jeeze.. 80-90% of America pays attention to in this kind of setting. Or.. in general tbf.

Idk, if this is what Vance’s plan was from the beginning of him putting out the “weird” headlines. Then that’s impressive, imo.


As a disclaimer I say this as a still undecided voter in a sold blue state who has always voted for dem presidents.

He's back to his racist, fascist, delusional, lying self today.

I really don't understand who people were impressed with Vance. He said things confidently, but it was all ridiculous nonsense. Building housing on federal lands in the middle of nowhere in the West will fix metro area housing prices? Tariffs would not cause inflation? Trump saved Obamacare? Trump transferred power peacefully? Crime is up and the economy is down? He wouldn't acknowledge that Trump lost. He wouldn't acknowledge that Trump killed the bipartisan border bill. He wouldn't acknowledge that immigrants who have temporary legal status are legally here. He absurdly blamed immigrants for every imaginary or exaggerated problem that he lied about. He repeatedly implied that the VP has absolute control over everything in the world. I can't think of one thing he said that was based on facts or any intelligent insight, wisdom, or analysis of facts. He just said bullshit non-stop to the point that it was impossible for Walz to respond to all of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question—does anyone think Vance said the stuff about cat ladies, and the Haitian stuff.. in order for the media to focus on him being a ridiculous And just as weird ‘Trump’ with the knowledge he’d catch people by surprise as the underdog in this debate?

Debates are 75% performance. And regardless of what you think of Vance’s answers/non-answers.. he was clearly much more wellspoken than Walz.

I know many of you will be quick to call out his many lies and non-answers… but that’s not the kind of stuff… jeeze.. 80-90% of America pays attention to in this kind of setting. Or.. in general tbf.

Idk, if this is what Vance’s plan was from the beginning of him putting out the “weird” headlines. Then that’s impressive, imo.


As a disclaimer I say this as a still undecided voter in a sold blue state who has always voted for dem presidents.

Vance lied incessantly. If that is not what you take away, you are focused on the wrong things.

[Anonymous]

Both candidates did a good job of not responding directly to questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question—does anyone think Vance said the stuff about cat ladies, and the Haitian stuff.. in order for the media to focus on him being a ridiculous And just as weird ‘Trump’ with the knowledge he’d catch people by surprise as the underdog in this debate?

Debates are 75% performance. And regardless of what you think of Vance’s answers/non-answers.. he was clearly much more wellspoken than Walz.

I know many of you will be quick to call out his many lies and non-answers… but that’s not the kind of stuff… jeeze.. 80-90% of America pays attention to in this kind of setting. Or.. in general tbf.

Idk, if this is what Vance’s plan was from the beginning of him putting out the “weird” headlines. Then that’s impressive, imo.


As a disclaimer I say this as a still undecided voter in a sold blue state who has always voted for dem presidents.

There was no clear winner - polls have viewers split for who won at 42-43%

Many people think Vance started off better but floundered and did not end strong. Walz started off weaker but ended stronger. Both did better on different topics.


This VP debate is unlikely to change many minds and the race remains very close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I was an adult back then and this is complete BS.

We didn’t like W’s policies and certainly didn’t trust his warmongering buddies pushing WMDs, but we didn’t think he was a freaking PSYCHOPATH trying to overthrow the US. The GOP wasn’t pushing Christofascism back then. The extremists were fringe, not their party leaders and nominees.

W hired these people : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

We were all ready for it to be done by then. The outcome seemed unfair but at no point was anyone worried about having a peaceful transition of power. Once it was done, it was done.

So you believe using violence to disrupt electoral processes is ok and that's why it's ok that W hired the people that did this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question—does anyone think Vance said the stuff about cat ladies, and the Haitian stuff.. in order for the media to focus on him being a ridiculous And just as weird ‘Trump’ with the knowledge he’d catch people by surprise as the underdog in this debate?

Debates are 75% performance. And regardless of what you think of Vance’s answers/non-answers.. he was clearly much more wellspoken than Walz.

I know many of you will be quick to call out his many lies and non-answers… but that’s not the kind of stuff… jeeze.. 80-90% of America pays attention to in this kind of setting. Or.. in general tbf.

Idk, if this is what Vance’s plan was from the beginning of him putting out the “weird” headlines. Then that’s impressive, imo.


As a disclaimer I say this as a still undecided voter in a sold blue state who has always voted for dem presidents.

He's back to his racist, fascist, delusional, lying self today.

I really don't understand who people were impressed with Vance. He said things confidently, but it was all ridiculous nonsense. Building housing on federal lands in the middle of nowhere in the West will fix metro area housing prices? Tariffs would not cause inflation? Trump saved Obamacare? Trump transferred power peacefully? Crime is up and the economy is down? He wouldn't acknowledge that Trump lost. He wouldn't acknowledge that Trump killed the bipartisan border bill. He wouldn't acknowledge that immigrants who have temporary legal status are legally here. He absurdly blamed immigrants for every imaginary or exaggerated problem that he lied about. He repeatedly implied that the VP has absolute control over everything in the world. I can't think of one thing he said that was based on facts or any intelligent insight, wisdom, or analysis of facts. He just said bullshit non-stop to the point that it was impossible for Walz to respond to all of it.

He said things confidently. That’s Magas measure of success. Truth be damned..

[Anonymous]

I dunno, I’m not sure “shameless but smooth liar” is at the top of my criteria for veep. A minimum standard of truth should be a given and everything else gets evaluated after that.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny democrats are harping on about Vance being a liar while voting for Walz- who was called out during the debate for yet another lie! On TV! In front of the world!

And called himself a knucklehead as he unsuccessfully tried to make obvious excuses for another lie.

Ya’ll crack me up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Immigrants are not bringing fentenyl, its iall brought over by native born Americans. You think someone is walking a thousand miles with hundreds of pounds of drugs on their back?

Immigrants are not bringing guns over - Mexico has a gun ban. The cartels get their guns from....the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s funny democrats are harping on about Vance being a liar while voting for Walz- who was called out during the debate for yet another lie! On TV! In front of the world!

And called himself a knucklehead as he unsuccessfully tried to make obvious excuses for another lie.

Ya’ll crack me up.

You are equating how someone remembers something from 35 years ago to someone else lying about their policy positions and the provable actions of the presidential candidate from a scant 4 years ago.

That is a lot of whataboutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I was an adult back then and this is complete BS.

We didn’t like W’s policies and certainly didn’t trust his warmongering buddies pushing WMDs, but we didn’t think he was a freaking PSYCHOPATH trying to overthrow the US. The GOP wasn’t pushing Christofascism back then. The extremists were fringe, not their party leaders and nominees.

W hired these people : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

We were all ready for it to be done by then. The outcome seemed unfair but at no point was anyone worried about having a peaceful transition of power. Once it was done, it was done.

So you believe using violence to disrupt electoral processes is ok and that's why it's ok that W hired the people that did this?

It wasn’t ok but it also wasn’t violent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Immigrants are not bringing fentenyl, its iall brought over by native born Americans. You think someone is walking a thousand miles with hundreds of pounds of drugs on their back?

Immigrants are not bringing guns over - Mexico has a gun ban. The cartels get their guns from....the US.

Specifically from areas with lax gun laws.

Rs always project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I was an adult back then and this is complete BS.

We didn’t like W’s policies and certainly didn’t trust his warmongering buddies pushing WMDs, but we didn’t think he was a freaking PSYCHOPATH trying to overthrow the US. The GOP wasn’t pushing Christofascism back then. The extremists were fringe, not their party leaders and nominees.

W hired these people : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

We were all ready for it to be done by then. The outcome seemed unfair but at no point was anyone worried about having a peaceful transition of power. Once it was done, it was done.

So you believe using violence to disrupt electoral processes is ok and that's why it's ok that W hired the people that did this?

It wasn’t ok but it also wasn’t violent.

6 people died and millions of dollars of property damage - how is that not violent ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I was an adult back then and this is complete BS.

We didn’t like W’s policies and certainly didn’t trust his warmongering buddies pushing WMDs, but we didn’t think he was a freaking PSYCHOPATH trying to overthrow the US. The GOP wasn’t pushing Christofascism back then. The extremists were fringe, not their party leaders and nominees.

W hired these people : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

We were all ready for it to be done by then. The outcome seemed unfair but at no point was anyone worried about having a peaceful transition of power. Once it was done, it was done.

So you believe using violence to disrupt electoral processes is ok and that's why it's ok that W hired the people that did this?

It wasn’t ok but it also wasn’t violent.

there are thousands of different videos available online, these were at the top of the list when I did a search.

[twitter]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98K-2uP_uA[/twitter]