Walz vs. Vance: VP Debate Oct 1 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t look at Walz and not think of Don Rickles.

This was funny

[Anonymous]

Vance refuses to defend or address Trump’s track record.

That must be frustrating for Walz, since it should bolster their campaign.

[Anonymous]

Springfield!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Waltz has obviously studied and memorized a lot of facts…but he is less fluent/polished.

Vance’s smarminess helps him. He can fluently say whatever he planned to, regardless of the question or facts.

Walz is doing fine. He doesn't need to compete with Yale Law. There are far more people in this country who identify with Tim Walz than Vance.

I'm on the fence about voting but agree with you. (I work in public schools.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does Vance mean that his grandmother required Social Security assistance "to raise him"? She either got benefits for herself or, if there were benefits attached to him, they would have been: SS benefits available if his mother was fund to be disabled (which is very hard if the primary disability is drug addiction) or his father (not enough info), or they would have been TANF benefits for children in foster care (TANF pays more money to relatives who foster children than it would to the child's immediate family.

So why didn't he just say they got welfare payments or TANF for him?

He’s full of shit. His grandma also got her late husband’s pension and mortgage free house. She wasn’t on skid row.

[Anonymous]

Vance is very smooth. Like a salesman. And he's less nervous and more wily.

But I still don't find him likeable. He's like a well oiled lawyer.

He barely answered the question on whether Israel should fire a preemptive strike on Iran. Instead, he ran out the clock thanking the sponsors and telling his long personal bio. He ended by saying for a few seconds at the end that Israel should do what they think is right. He had zero clue how to answer, and no substance to his answer. He's just a shiny suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boring and as expected so far, no major missteps yet.

Beyond boring. Turning this off in 10 minutes. Snoozer. Isn’t moving the needle for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Shut up, JD!

[Anonymous]

Vance is like Ted Cruz. He's so proud of his Ivy League law school LSAT twisty logic puns like burn more fuel to burn less fuel, and that Harris's policy is equivalent to running drug mules, and that he agrees with Walz but not Harris, logically that no one in the audience can follow, even if there's an argument hiding in there.

[Anonymous]

Bible quote!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vance is prepared, his speech is punctuated, he makes strong clear statements that are simple, easy to understand and repeat and quote.

Walz makes awkward pauses, his speech is less punctuated, the delivery is not as impressive.

- Kamala supporter here, just being honest about my debate impressions so far

Walz practiced on sentence fragments much like Trump. It's a style of speech, but I'm not a fan of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vance is very smooth. Like a salesman. And he's less nervous and more wily.

But I still don't find him likeable. He's like a well oiled lawyer.

He barely answered the question on whether Israel should fire a preemptive strike on Iran. Instead, he ran out the clock thanking the sponsors and telling his long personal bio. He ended by saying for a few seconds at the end that Israel should do what they think is right. He had zero clue how to answer, and no substance to his answer. He's just a shiny suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waltz has obviously studied and memorized a lot of facts…but he is less fluent/polished.

Vance’s smarminess helps him. He can fluently say whatever he planned to, regardless of the question or facts.

Yes. It doesn't matter that Walz is winning on content. Appearances matter more, and Vance is winning on polish.

[Anonymous]

Cut his mic! Hahaha