Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does not surprise me, but interesting about Independents.

I'd be curious to know what specifically they were responding to. If anyone finds any more data, please post.

Independent here. Walz talked substance. He discussed actual policy and possible solutions. He was able to describe the challenges of some of the problems we face.

Vance was slick but light on substance. It was obvious he was deflecting. For example on the deportation question, how exactly would that work? Where does the money come from? And pivoting back to illegal immigrants is not actually compelling. But, if you’re going to keep going there you need to talk specifics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Tim Walz ripped off Vance's mask with this response. My jaw dropped and I immediately knew it would be the most talked about exchange of the night.

This was Walz's "at long last, have you no, have you no decency sir?"

Vance just froze and had zero response.

Anonymous wrote:I wish Walz had been more forceful on the economy which is biggest concern for undecided voters.

Economy has grown three times faster under than Trump. Trump also inherited a national economy that was in the black from
Obama and created a trillion dollar budget deficit with his tax break for billionaires. Harris/ Walz have many more policy ideas to help the middle class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does not surprise me, but interesting about Independents.

I'd be curious to know what specifically they were responding to. If anyone finds any more data, please post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Tim Walz ripped off Vance's mask with this response. My jaw dropped and I immediately knew it would be the most talked about exchange of the night.

"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Tim Walz ripped off Vance's mask with this response. My jaw dropped and I immediately knew it would be the most talked about exchange of the night.

This was Walz's "at long last, have you no, have you no decency sir?"

Vance just froze and had zero response.

Anonymous wrote:"I'm pretty shocked ... He lost the election. And that isn't a debate anywhere but in Donald Trump's world. And when Mike Pence made the decision to certify that election, that's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage right now.

So what I'm concerned about is where is the firewall for Donald Trump? Where is the firewall with Donald Trump if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election, and his VP isn't going to stand up to it.

We're left asking "will you keep your oath of office, even if the President doesn't"? Of course I would, that's why Kamala Harris picked me.

"So America, I think you've got a really clear choice to make."

Tim Walz ripped off Vance's mask with this response. My jaw dropped and I immediately knew it would be the most talked about exchange of the night.

jsteele 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.

The process is legal and does not circumvent the law. Every aspect of Biden's immigration policy has been subject to legal action. If this was not legal, it would have been as well. For that matter, it would probably be challenged even though it is legal.

Regardless, the app has nothing to do with the Haitians in Springfield. But I assume that you, like Vance, have no problem with racist stereotypes. Are you also a White supremacist?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except as a PP pointed out, Vance failed the most important responsibility for a VP - overseeing peaceful transfer of power. He refused to admit that Trump lost in 2020 or that he would certify election results if his guy does not win.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does not surprise me, but interesting about Independents.

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Lots of substance last night. Finally.

Anonymous wrote:One point I haven't seen discussed yet is Vance's/Trump's plan to create more housing by seizing federal land. Where exactly are these public lands and who is going to get to buy them? What federal parks, forests, seashores are they aiming for? And what developers get to buy up that seized public property? Vance never answered Walz when he asked.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So you'd keep your brain-dead child on machines to keep it "alive" forever because it makes YOU feel better, not whats best for the child? That is gruesome and self serving.