this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
122 points (96.9% liked)

politics

18998 readers
2144 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Final (?) Debate thread before the election in 35 days.

Debate begins at 9 PM Eastern, 6 PM Pacific and runs 90 minutes.

Vice Presidential debates are always tricky since nobody has voted for Vice President in living memory.

Expect Vance to attack Walz on his military service.

Expect Walz to attack Vance on the whole "immigrants eating cats and dogs" thing.

Expect Vance to attack Walz on being an assistant coach, at best.

Expect Walz to roll out "Weird!" at least once.

CBS has announced the burden of fact checking will be on the candidates themselves.

https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10

How to watch here:

https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10

"How can you watch the VP debate on cable? 

CBS will air debate coverage starting at 8 p.m. ET on CBS broadcast stations and affiliates. Find your local station here.

How can you stream the VP debate without cable? 

The debate can be streamed on the free CBS News app on your connected TV or smartphone, on Paramount+, and all platforms where CBS News 24/7 is available, including CBSNews.com and YouTube. 

Debate coverage on CBS News 24/7 begins at 4 p.m. ET."

Edit Impressive how a debate can go when one participant doesn't have mental health issues! Thanks for coming everybody!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Morning after thoughts:

  • Walz is not actually a bad debater. He's not polished and practiced, but his command of policy and numbers means he still comes across as fairly confident. He knows what he knows, and that can stand in for polish.
  • Vance didn't do badly, but I genuinely can't remember any of his answers, and that's kind of weird. I think it's because he answered like he'd been raised by a generative AI instead of human parents. Seriously, can anyone actually remember anything he said, without looking it up?
  • Walz had more flubs. But he also got in a lot more hits. It remains to be seen which will stick in the minds of voters more, if either.
  • The lack of Trump on the stage made this one a lot more mature. It's amazing what a difference it makes when one of the debaters isn't a demented man-baby.

The way I see it, Walz's clearly superior command of policy details, and the way that fact-checkers are counting nearly everything Vance said as a lie, gives Walz the technical win, while Vance gets the nod for being more polished. In the end, I don't think this debate will matter much to the election.

Those with an interest in history might remember that back during the 1988 election, Lloyd Bentsen absolutely demolished Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush's pick for VP, in a debate. But it was forgotten in a matter of days - if not hours - and Bush went on to win handily.

I think this debate will likely be forgotten soon, too.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Vance didn’t do badly, but I genuinely can’t remember any of his answers

I remember when he said "We must stop listening to the experts and start listening to common sense." I rolled my eyes at that one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Wait, don't tell me. Is this the guy whose running mate suggested injecting disinfectant?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

It was okay. Walz was the nice dad. Vance was the slimy, mudslinging worm he is, a true politician in every negative sense of the word.

Walz was too nice and charitable towards Vance and gave him credit on certain issues, and Vance didn't return it in kind.

Vance lied through his teeth and wouldn't answer a single goddamn question. Spent most of his time saying how terrible Kamala was and almost none about how Trump would be good for people.

I left thinking it was an okay performance from both, but I suspect people will remember Vance being a greasy little weasel and Walz being a nice dad. Overall, a net positive for Harris/Walz, but only a little.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Walz gave good answers about 90% of the time but definite dodged a few. Vance, otoh, made shit up constantly and harped on fear topics. Always about the border, blaming Harris for policy she wasn’t responsible for, and offering up an economy that the republicans have zero plans to create.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hey now, there's concepts of a plan at least.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Walz was way too soft on Vance and let him control most of the debate. I'm tired of Dems positioning themselves as diet Republicans, then acting like they are nothing like while saying how much they agree with a guy like Vance on things lol. Vance also loudly saying you weren't supposed to fact-check me was embarrassing. Walz laid out actual plans and policy but that is not going to reach that crowd they are targeting.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

GOP was setting the bar low for Vance before the debate, and he easily cleared it, so with low expectations, the consensus will be that he was fantastic. Walz was no surprise, he was fine, so I think folks are going to call it a slight Vance win. It won't matter, neither got hit hard enough, it won't move anything.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Honestly, that was a solid debate from both candidates. They both did a good job dancing around direct answers. They both could throw and take jabs. The humbleness and relatability of both candidates was a breath of fresh air. I think they both did a good job trying to sway anyone on the fence, and overall, I think this benefits the Republican Party most. Vance is just a much more personable person than Trump. Democrats are really going to need to turn up if they want to win this election. I really think productive right-specific voters are going to show up from both sides and determine it.

Here's to hoping personal autonomy wins out. Govement rules over ones personal body is a slippery slope. Allowing one to choose, that's freedom.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Saying Vance is personable kind of confuses me. Its like saying Trump is charismatic. No!? But I can see Vance chilling at a cookout while Trump is hiding in his office like the beginning of the Godfather.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

charisma /kə-rĭz′mə/ noun A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.

Trump absolutely has charisma. Outside of being a lying narcissist, its literally his defining trait.

And vance, in comparison to trump, is much more personable. That was on display. Vance is still a weasely amoral couch fucker, but if i was absolutely forced to be in a room with one or the other, i would pick vance over trump every time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate the extra clarification on pronunciation, but charisma also means likeable and having a magnetic personality, not just being a wannabe despotic populist leader. Vance has a chance at the former until he starts talking.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dude, its called context. The usage implied was very clear.

And my bad, i guess i left out the little "1" at the start that says my definition was the primary usage to support my argument, but whatever... it seemed obvious.

Despite that, even by your narrower definition, trump still has charisma. just not the kind that works on you. People can be likable and have a magnetic personality and whatever else, and you can still despise them. They would still be called charismatic. The people waving his signs, attending his rallys, and wearing his red hats would certainly say he is likable and has a magnetic personality. Are they wrong? No. The sheer number of his followers prove he has charisma. Clap yourself on the back for not falling for that particular style of charisma if you want, but dont deny it exists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Cool. Fuck the nazis.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

My take away is the same. That was more of a "debate" than we have had in literal years.

I think walz did good. He held his ground and had some very solid jabs. He knows his roll as second man and backup and played it well.

Vance... did suprisingly well, and will definately be a threat in the future, based on his debate skills at least. This is practice for him regardless of how the election turns out. Experience is what he lacks, and the national stage will hone him over the next few years.

All in all, ill say no clear winner for the debate on face value. It was a show for the sake of the show. But ill absolutely be paying attention in the coming years. One scandal can sink vance, and if past gop tendancies are anything, there will be one. Walz is fairly bulletproof in that regard.

That was a good effort from both sides tbh.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's really annoying that JD had a valid point about economic experts being wrong about pushing neoliberalism. That really weakened Walz'es otherwise great point that we should be listening to the experts about climate change and allowed the couchfucker to push the "follow common sense" bullshit.

load more comments
view more: next ›