Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both of them did excellent and whatever side you are on, you’d be happy. Vance was the better speaker, to be clear. But Walz was likable and came across as a kind person. I think Trump’s campaign will benefit more though- a lot of people will vote for Trump begrudgingly and Vance will make that pull easier to swallow

It was pretty much a draw. But Vance made it sound like the GOP agrees with the Democratic Party on abortion and gun control but the GOP hasn’t been able to explain its policies well. Not sure how that translates into a winning GOP argument. If you like the Democratic Party’s position, just vote for the party who isn’t afraid to say what it stands for: the Democrats.

And in doing so, turns of core GOP supporters.

Anonymous wrote:I find myself feeling sorry for @GovTimWalz. He seems like a nice guy, but in way over his head to be second in line to run the country. A bit of a buffoon, but in a good way. A kind man that will get his face ripped off in a negotiation. Not someone that I want making consequential decisions for all Americans.

We get it. You prefer smooth talking lawyers who lie about their opponents, their policies, and the implications of their policies to a person who is not as smooth but was re-elected to Congress five times before becoming a successful governor.

You are a moron and why this country is headed for the toilet.

I would trust Walz far more to make important decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think both of them did excellent and whatever side you are on, you’d be happy. Vance was the better speaker, to be clear. But Walz was likable and came across as a kind person. I think Trump’s campaign will benefit more though- a lot of people will vote for Trump begrudgingly and Vance will make that pull easier to swallow

It was pretty much a draw. But Vance made it sound like the GOP agrees with the Democratic Party on abortion and gun control but the GOP hasn’t been able to explain its policies well. Not sure how that translates into a winning GOP argument. If you like the Democratic Party’s position, just vote for the party who isn’t afraid to say what it stands for: the Democrats.

My teenager came away with the impression that Vance supports most of the Democratic policies (except on the abortion piece, where he thought it was weird that Vance seemed to want teenage girls with abusive boyfriends to have their babies).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's get this right. Settlers came to America and built something. Immigrants came to something that was already built.

+1

Wow the DAR snobs out in force tonight. I’m proud descendent of 19th and 20th century immigrants who came to a country where previous arrivals had built something, and who helped to build something even better, working in factories and building America’s bridges and roads to create the world’s greatest economy.

Exactly. What happened to the melting pot? Our diversity is our strength. These fools are just swallowing the GOP fear-pie.

The USA is not a melting pot. Everybody goes back to their own neighborhoods and separate churches. I think the saying now is that we are a pot of stew, not melting pot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Day 1 was 1400 days ago!

Bam.

Why has Harris not working o this right now!!!

Somebody flunked their high school civics class. Go back and study what powers are enumerated in a Vice President versus President and then you’d know how stupid you really are when making this allegation.

Let me clean that up.

The problems we have had in the last 3.5 years fall directly on Biden/Harris. They have similar policies.

Even so, Biden has exited the stage and handed over most responsibilities to Harris. She is sitting in on calls with world leaders, leading relief efforts for Helene, and he is letting her do whatever she wants now with his support.

So if these problems are so urgent, why is not fixing them NOW vs waiting for January 2025?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow. Vance is good.

+1

Things I can’t believe Walz said: he’s a knucklehead, he has bad grammar, he’s friends with school shooters, and the whole panic ramble about Tiananmen square. He had wild eyes and a very uncomfortable vibe about him.

DP. So was Walz at Tiananmen Square? I'm confused by his answer.

No, he went to China about a month or two after the actual Tianamen Square massacre. But my memory (I'm about his age) is that the protest movement and the ensuing crackdown was larger than just that one day. So he may have been remembering the general vibe and not the specific day. Or he may have meant to say he was there "in the wake of" Tianemen Square and short-handed that. It was a dumb unforced error on his part, but I don't think it was a malicious lie.

+1

Vance >>>>>> Trump
Waltz >>> Kamala

Both VPs are significantly better part of the ticket

Anonymous wrote:I think both of them did excellent and whatever side you are on, you’d be happy. Vance was the better speaker, to be clear. But Walz was likable and came across as a kind person. I think Trump’s campaign will benefit more though- a lot of people will vote for Trump begrudgingly and Vance will make that pull easier to swallow

It was pretty much a draw. But Vance made it sound like the GOP agrees with the Democratic Party on abortion and gun control but the GOP hasn’t been able to explain its policies well. Not sure how that translates into a winning GOP argument. If you like the Democratic Party’s position, just vote for the party who isn’t afraid to say what it stands for: the Democrats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow. Vance is good.

+1

Things I can’t believe Walz said: he’s a knucklehead, he has bad grammar, he’s friends with school shooters, and the whole panic ramble about Tiananmen square. He had wild eyes and a very uncomfortable vibe about him.

DP. So was Walz at Tiananmen Square? I'm confused by his answer.

He lied about it numerous times. Most recently he said in a CBS interview he was there.

But he was Not! He came to China a few months later.


This poses a problem with his issues with whole military service snafu as well.

Oh, it’s more than a snafu. All military folks detest Stolen Val0r.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow. Vance is good.

+1

Things I can’t believe Walz said: he’s a knucklehead, he has bad grammar, he’s friends with school shooters, and the whole panic ramble about Tiananmen square. He had wild eyes and a very uncomfortable vibe about him.

DP. So was Walz at Tiananmen Square? I'm confused by his answer.

No, he went to China about a month or two after the actual Tianamen Square massacre. But my memory (I'm about his age) is that the protest movement and the ensuing crackdown was larger than just that one day. So he may have been remembering the general vibe and not the specific day. Or he may have meant to say he was there "in the wake of" Tianemen Square and short-handed that. It was a dumb unforced error on his part, but I don't think it was a malicious lie.

Anonymous wrote:Day 1 was 1400 days ago!

Bam.

Why has Harris not working o this right now!!!

Somebody flunked their high school civics class. Go back and study what powers are enumerated in a Vice President versus President and then you’d know how stupid you really are when making this allegation.

Anonymous wrote:

Lunz hates Trump and has been hard on him all election cycle, so this is pretty damning. It’s also bad for Harris that this is the last debate until the election and everyone is just going to be left with JD Vance dog walking Walz and “I’m friends with school shooters” memes.

Anonymous wrote:Joe Klein came out and said Walz’s debate performance was almost as bad as the Biden debate disaster. Wow.

I watched both the whole way through and disagree.

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

Vance did well in the beginning but made too many big blunders -
Doubling down on Haitian pet eating nonsense, disrespecting the female moderators, dismissing Jan 6 insurrection as a first amendment issue comparable to Clinton criticizing Russian interference in 2016, and declaring school gun safety can be achieved through making stronger doors and hiring more armed school guards.

He was civil though. They both were. That is commendable:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow. Vance is good.

+1

Things I can’t believe Walz said: he’s a knucklehead, he has bad grammar, he’s friends with school shooters, and the whole panic ramble about Tiananmen square. He had wild eyes and a very uncomfortable vibe about him.

DP. So was Walz at Tiananmen Square? I'm confused by his answer.

He lied about it numerous times. Most recently he said in a CBS interview he was there.

But he was Not! He came to China a few months later.


This poses a problem with his issues with whole military service snafu as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow. Vance is good.

+1

Things I can’t believe Walz said: he’s a knucklehead, he has bad grammar, he’s friends with school shooters, and the whole panic ramble about Tiananmen square. He had wild eyes and a very uncomfortable vibe about him.

DP. So was Walz at Tiananmen Square? I'm confused by his answer.

Another DP. Does it really matter? What I found a little more disturbing was there's a news article out there in which Walz's wife said they chose their wedding day to be the 5th anniversary of it, as he would always remember it. (Fwiw I looked into it and it's true)