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.

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.

Who is Joe Klein and why should we care about his opinion?

Anonymous wrote:To be honest, it was a shock not to hear trump's craziness and to be reminded of what a debate between two sane people was like as opposed to one sane woman and a certifiable mad orange con man!

I doubt it changed a single vote as however.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed watching the debate.

As I watched, the main thing I considered is who is more prepared to step into the presidency. That is the primary purpose of a VP.

Vance proved he is ready. He has a command of the issues. He is able to articulate his positions and can explain and defend the positions of the ticket he is running on. He understands the concerns of the American people. And, he is at ease addressing a large audience.

The same cannot be said for Walz. He struggled trying to defend his past statements. And, they didn't even get into the whole military service embellishments. It wasn't clear that he understood or could defend the positions of his ticket. This is not surprising since it is questionable whether Harris actually can articulate her positions. He was uncomfortable. And, what was the "I became friends with school shooters" all about? WTH?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pallative care for an unviable baby, anyone? the GOP fixaation on this is absurd and grotesque.

To be clear: are you, like Walz, saying that it's wrong, to even report the death of a living human infant, not physically connected to its mother?

Do you also support parents withdrawing care from their teenage children who are "unviable" without medical intervention? An infant who is alive is "unviable"?
If not, when does life begin for you?


And you wonder why the right finds you gruesome?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html

"Among debate watchers, Walz remains the candidate who’s seen more positively and as more in touch with their needs and vision for the country. Vance, who suffers from more of an image deficit among both viewers and the public at large, boosted his standing among the debate audience, outperforming expectations and gaining ground on the share who perceive him as qualified. He was also narrowly seen as doing a better job than Walz of defending his running mate. Both men, the poll finds, are viewed by a majority of debate watchers as qualified to assume the presidency if needed. And practically none of the voters who tuned in saw the debate as a reason to change their votes."

At the end of the day, this won't change anyone's opinions.

Exactly. The main point of VP debates is to demonstrate whether each candidate can pass the most basic test of appearing presidential enough to serve as president--if they ever need to be. They both passed that test. VP debate performances rare change opinions.