politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A little more than an hour in...
Vance has been exactly as polished as expected, other than a slightly rough start coming off as robotic. He's managed a few genuinely human-seeming moments, too, especially upon learning that one of Walz's kids witnessed a shooting. But he's been lying nearly constantly.
Walz isn't as polished, but he's been doing much better in that department than I would have expected, while still coming off as very nice and genuine. He's had a couple of flubs, but none of them were debate killers, while he's gotten in far more actual hits than Vance, by far. Like, it's not even close.
There's another thing: Vance is legitimately boring to listen to. I didn't realize this before, but his voice could be used as a sleep aid.
I'm biased. I'll own that. So take from this what you will: I think Walz is winning. It's close, but I think he's coming off as more honest and more real, while Vance is coming off as dishonest and plastic.
I see where you’re coming from, but I’d argue that while Walz is doing a respectable job, he’s not quite managing to keep up with Vance’s pace. The thing about Vance that makes him particularly worrisome is that he’s refined Trump’s messaging—he’s just as dangerous, but he presents it in a way that’s far more polished and effective. That’s what makes him so slippery.
Sure, Walz’s authenticity is a big plus, but in a debate setting, especially on TV, polish can sometimes outshine sincerity. And Vance, after shaking off that stiff opening, has settled into a confident, almost calculated cadence that’s making his points hit harder—even when they’re misleading. It’s that ability to mask lies behind a veneer of smooth professionalism that’s giving Vance the edge right now.
So, while I agree that Walz is holding his own and has some solid moments, Vance’s ability to deliver Trump’s talking points with better packaging makes him a much tougher opponent.
The "friends with school shooters" bit might have been a debate killer. I obviously don't want that but it was pretty bad