Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Walz was not brilliant but could have made his points more clearly. But he performed better than Biden.

I thought Walz did OK.

Obviously Biden's last performance is a very low bar, as that literally ended his campaign.

Yes that was in response to PP’s observation that Joe Klein opined that Walz did nearly as bad as Biden. I think that Walz was awkward here and there but he did better than Biden. Also, he is running for VP not P.

Walz did fine and got better as he went along. He is not a smooth talker but he said substantive, thoughtful things and he nailed Vance to the wall at the end about Jan 6.

Walz is a terrible speaker, the entire debate he was angry, anxious and lost. Adding that to Harris's terrible speaking skills, together they will be a joke for many years to come.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not good for the GOP

I googled abortion during the debate, and it was because Vance started telling lies about Minnesota abortion laws and I wanted to see what he was talking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/01/us/factcheck-walz-vance
“The statute you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives — the doctor is under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”
— Senator JD Vance

This is false.
Mr. Vance is distorting Mr. Walz’s repeal of a so-called born alive law that had been in effect in Minnesota since the 1970s. That law required doctors to report when a “live child” was “born as the result of an abortion,” and to provide “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to care for that infant.

How is the false?
Vance accurately described the law that Walz signed.

You still need to keep calling him a liar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, 6 entire people?

That’s amazing.

5 out of 6. And yes, that’s how focus groups work since you’re unfamiliar.

Anonymous wrote:Walz missed a layup when vance went on about needing more manufacturing and "drill baby drill" given Biden-Harris as repatriated hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and is a net energy exporter with record gas and oil production.

He did say that we’re producing more natural gas and more energy than ever but I agree it could have been stronger. Hardly anyone knows that the US is producing more energy than any country has at any other time in history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another blatant lie

Woosh!

That is totally not the flex you think it is. I don't USA on that chart.

Because the factories Biden put in place after the manufacturing recession under Trump are still being built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz's closing statement was bad. Selling rainbows and sunshine.. invoking Taylor Swift even though she told people to make their own decisions.

Vance made his case concretely, stating people's real specific concerns, and got the last word. Believe him or not, he hit the target dead center for people concerned about their own immediate lives, not theoretically abstractions.

She specifically endorsed Harris-Walz. There was nothing wrong with his close.

Also Dick Cheney???? Not a very positive person.

He’s positive that Trump should never get near to Oval again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eww Vance is so slimy.

Vance is hot.

#eyeliner

Not just that, he has a perfect bone structure. Walz looks like a defective imbecile compared to Vance.

Donald, is that you?

Vance is like the bad guy from Frozen, Prince Hans, who looks and sounds like a caring guy, but is a master of manipulation with an evil heart.

Nailed it.

Yes. But the populace will love him.

Really?

Vance has the highest negatives of any candidate in decades. This debate will not make the populace love him.

Anonymous wrote:Vance is a practiced liar and smooth gaslighter so the ladies fact-checking him really pissed him off.

"Wah you promised no fact-checking!"

He didn't "wag". He asserted his right to rebut the moderator after she started to debate with him.

Then she thanked him for correcting her misleading description of the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not good for the GOP

I googled abortion during the debate, and it was because Vance started telling lies about Minnesota abortion laws and I wanted to see what he was talking about.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/01/us/factcheck-walz-vance
“The statute you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives — the doctor is under no obligation to provide life-saving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”
— Senator JD Vance

This is false.
Mr. Vance is distorting Mr. Walz’s repeal of a so-called born alive law that had been in effect in Minnesota since the 1970s. That law required doctors to report when a “live child” was “born as the result of an abortion,” and to provide “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to care for that infant.

How is the false?
Vance accurately described the law that Walz signed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz spent so time talking about his constituents compared to Vance... who I don't believe discussed his own efforts in office at all

Exactly. Walz has experience working on real problems as a governor and in the House. Vance is just a bullshitter.

He said he was friends with school shooters.

They have nothing of substance to criticize Walz about, so all they can complain about is that he missed a word in a sentence

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walz spent so time talking about his constituents compared to Vance... who I don't believe discussed his own efforts in office at all

Exactly. Walz has experience working on real problems as a governor and in the House. Vance is just a bullshitter.

He said he was friends with school shooters.

Vance is unpredictable. Vance changes his whole personality and opinions depending on who his audience is and who he wants to win over.

When he's in front of Never Trumpers, he called Trump "ineffective", "dangerious like an opiod" and "Hitler".

When he's at a MAGA rally, he says Trump is the best president we've ever had and pledges to follow the man he used to call Hitler.

When he's talking to incel alt-right podcast hosts, he blames women for everything, especially childless cat ladies and "non breeding" women.

Today at the VP debate, he decided to be a new guy to soften his negative image with suburban women, changed stance to say he didn't want a nationwide abortion ban (although there's audio of him saying he absolutely does earlier).

Vance will say anything to optimize the person he wants to win over. He's the worst kind of chameleon. He can be smooth and rehearsed but he stands for ... nothing.

Tim Walz meanwhile is awkward but is genuine and consistent.

Anonymous wrote:Walz spent so time talking about his constituents compared to Vance... who I don't believe discussed his own efforts in office at all

Exactly. Walz has experience working on real problems as a governor and in the House. Vance is just a bullshitter.

Walz spent so time talking about his constituents compared to Vance... who I don't believe discussed his own efforts in office at all

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Walz was not brilliant but could have made his points more clearly. But he performed better than Biden.

I thought Walz did OK.

Obviously Biden's last performance is a very low bar, as that literally ended his campaign.

Yes that was in response to PP’s observation that Joe Klein opined that Walz did nearly as bad as Biden. I think that Walz was awkward here and there but he did better than Biden. Also, he is running for VP not P.

Walz did fine and got better as he went along. He is not a smooth talker but he said substantive, thoughtful things and he nailed Vance to the wall at the end about Jan 6.

This. Plus it was very clear that he was thoughtful and has lots of actual governing experience. Vance seemed like a well-practiced debater but light on substance and practical solutions.