Anonymous wrote:Response to who won the debate evenly split, following party lines. Independents broke for Walz, but Vance's unfavorables improved. Does seem like it was a draw.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/politico-snap-poll-division-debate-00182131

Anonymous wrote:No one is talking about how amazingly stupid Vance’s idea of selling federal land to developers to reduce housing prices. Almost all the unclaimed federal land is in a national park, national forest, desert, swamp, mountains, or other inhabitable place in the middle of nowhere. Houses are already cheap in the middle of nowhere. The housing crisis is in the cities and suburbs where the jobs are and where people want to live. There is no available federal lands in major cities. A bunch of states, including his state of Ohio, have almost no federal lands at all. How can Vance combine his cockiness with total ignorance of the topic at hand?

Anonymous wrote:"Trump's running mate had the greasy self-assurance of someone used to lying to people he thinks are stupid."

Anonymous wrote:Of the 4 candidates, J.D. Vance is by far the most intelligent and polished. I’d say, however, I’d trust either of these two to be president over the two front runners

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

Well if you can remember Congress tried to pass a bill to overhaul immigration laws but Trump had the GOP vote against their own bill. (Bill was introduced by Langford.)

Wow, so you are saying that biden and harris don't have any power as presidents? Trump can change the direction of the country? LOL

Anonymous wrote:Walz is going to wipe the floor with Vance.

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:Visually, Vance looked better and was calmer than Walz. Waltz is folksy and relatable but the split screen visual did go in Vance’s favor with Walz appearing sweaty and anxious. Remember, younger generations know all about social media and how to look better, sound better and be insta ready angled.

The age difference did show just as with Trump vs Harris. Look as far back at Kennedy vs Nixon. There is a lesson to be learned about how to present yourself and how others will view you. Calm means you are winning.

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:

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.

No, the point is that the system is complicated and overwhelmed, and that (like the tax laws) people adjust to take advantage of perceived loopholes. So you need a strong, nimble federal government that's able to make adjustments. The Biden administration HAS made adjustments and brought the crossings down SIGNIFICANTLY. They tried to make bigger adjustments thru legislation, but Trump blocked that for selfish political reasons. Trump's history was that he basically hollowed out the State Department and the ICE folks that enforce/administer the administrative laws, so that left Biden in a not-great position, and they had to staff back up and get things back on track. Even the desired, legal immigration went way down during the Trump years, because he is an agent of chaos that was unable to run an effective and efficient government. Does the app have problems? Maybe -- most apps do! That's why people then adjust and fix them.

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:No one is talking about how amazingly stupid Vance’s idea of selling federal land to developers to reduce housing prices. Almost all the unclaimed federal land is in a national park, national forest, desert, swamp, mountains, or other inhabitable place in the middle of nowhere. Houses are already cheap in the middle of nowhere. The housing crisis is in the cities and suburbs where the jobs are and where people want to live. There is no available federal lands in major cities. A bunch of states, including his state of Ohio, have almost no federal lands at all. How can Vance combine his cockiness with total ignorance of the topic at hand?