71d
@vivify saidThe debate started while I was at home and ended a bit after I got to work, so I didn't get to see much of it.
Alright, I'm going to bed for tonight. Final thoughts:
Vance ran circles around Walz performance wise and keeping his cool. Walz looked nervous at times, stammered a lot, had too many long pauses, while Vance was more quick-witted. Walz at one point had spit on his lower lip.
Walz did better later in the debate but Vance was far more consistent from start to finish ...[text shortened]... I'd give Vance 65 points and Walz 59. Their interaction at the end of the debate was heartwarming.
Vance is the better debater. Van Jones on CNN said this is because he went to Yale Law School, same school Van Jones went to, and they teach you to debate in a very slick manner in order to win.
I wouldn't expect Walz to be that good. I mean he was an assistant coach, not in law school. I expected him to be better than he was because he has the facts on his side, and he's just a better person than Vance. He knows what is important to regular Americans.
I appreciate your synopsis.
71d
1 edit
@mike69 saidPeople with no substance usually fall on the crutch of yelling censorship.
Everyone so far must have watched a different debate than me. In my humble opinion Vance clearly dominated Walz showing himself to be the most qualified and knowledgeable for the job. This debate was still clearly three on one, along with trying to spoon feeding answers to Walz he halfway screwed up, with fact-checking Vance and on. This is very sad and unfair to the Peopl ...[text shortened]... et and worse if she actually wins. As far as Walz, I don’t want a scared knucklehead for VP, sorry!
And quit trying to normalize Trump. He is the worst elected official this country has ever seen, period.
You speak like a true cultist.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 41701
71d
@Suzianne saidWhatever you say sunshine, maybe you just don’t have to worry about money, be blessed and carry on.
People with no substance usually fall on the crutch of yelling censorship.
And quit trying to normalize Trump. He is the worst elected official this country has ever seen, period.
You speak like a true cultist.
71d
@vivify saidThanks for the summary, I will only be able to watch this tonight which will mean about 10 hrs after the debate finished.
It's currently live (live streamed by YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAGZGQg31hs
EDIT: Some initial thoughts:
Vance is much smoother with his delivery than Waltz. He's giving a lot of non-answers but sounds good while doing it.
Waltz is bringing a lot of facts that can actually be looked up or Googled, while Vance is stating a lot of opinions not back ...[text shortened]... I asked you a question and you respond with a slogan"
Damn. That's probably the line of the line
Just one observation, could it be that Vance appeared more slick and polished, because he is not tethered to the actual truth and is able to talk fast and loose with right wing talking points, that are more in sync with what people readily accept as true, even if they are demonstrably false.
71d
@kmax87
Vance tried to make himself sound SO sincere but he follows the republican winds of the day. One day Trump is the American Hitler and now Trump is the greatest POTUS since Lincoln. He has very little actual senatorial experience compared to Walz.
I hope there is an expose on Vance association with Yarvin.
71d
@kmax87 saidYes, this is it in a nutshell. They operate without the onus of believing what they say.
Thanks for the summary, I will only be able to watch this tonight which will mean about 10 hrs after the debate finished.
Just one observation, could it be that Vance appeared more slick and polished, because he is not tethered to the actual truth and is able to talk fast and loose with right wing talking points, that are more in sync with what people readily accept as true, even if they are demonstrably false.
71d
@vivify saidWhy the sudden rise in real time fact checking?
Vance, on Climate change, said if Dems were serious about climate change...they'd manufacture more in the United States.
WTF does that mean?
Norah O'Donnell is a lying POS. She needs to be fact checked herself. This real time fact checking has to stop. Margaret Brennan also did real time fact checking. Moderators have no right to interject into the debates. It is insulting to our intelligence. As if the candidates cannot defend themselves and desperately need help from the clearly biased moderators.
We are clearly being conditioned to accept this BS as normal. Do you really need Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan to tell you what the facts are? How much do you want to bet the corporate news media will not fact check Norah O'Donnell for her lie about consensus of global warming?
Looks like lying fact checkers are the future of debates. The corporate news media does not think the candidates are capable of fact checking on their own. They need help from the moderators. Vance was debating 3 people last night. Pretty soon it will seem normal for moderators to pile onto a certain candidate with opinions passing as facts.
71d
@shavixmir saidIf I were to guess there won't be much impact on the polls. Vance was a better debater but Walz still had good arguments and some good moments, especially at the end.
I didn’t watch it.
Thanks for the summaries.
I wonder if it (the debate, not your summaries) will influence the polls.
Furthermore fewer people care about the VP debates compared to the presidential one.
One thing that may change: the public's perception of Vance. Prior to this debate he was a seen as some weirdo. Last night he came across as a very civil, decent human being. Walz also reciprocated and matched that energy.
Whether Trump wins or lose I think Vance's popularity will definitely increase and he'll probably have a more noteworthy career in politics from here on out.
71d
@vivify saidI'm watching it right now and I don't agree. Maybe I listened to too much Joni as a kid and anyone that has a hint of being a rambler and a gambler and a sweet talking ladies man, is someone that I quickly tune out.
If I were to guess there won't be much impact on the polls. Vance was a better debater but Walz still had good arguments and some good moments, especially at the end.
Furthermore fewer people care about the VP debates compared to the presidential one.
One thing that may change: the public's perception of Vance. Prior to this debate he was a seen as some weirdo. L ...[text shortened]... l definitely increase and he'll probably have a more noteworthy career in politics from here on out.
Walz won no contest.
71d
@Metal-Brain saidBecause people talk so much BS so often they start believing it and sometimes it's good to have a referee that can blow the whistle and say enough. Stop talking s*'&
Why the sudden rise in real time fact checking?
71d
@Suzianne saidTrue. Whatever they believe the electorate will swallow, that's their spiel. The phrase, they talk out of both sides of their mouth truly applies.
Yes, this is it in a nutshell. They operate without the onus of believing what they say.
@Suzianne saidWhen I say Vance won, I'm factoring in what I think most Americans look for in a debater.
The debate started while I was at home and ended a bit after I got to work, so I didn't get to see much of it.
Vance is the better debater. Van Jones on CNN said this is because he went to Yale Law School, same school Van Jones went to, and they teach you to debate in a very slick manner in order to win.
I wouldn't expect Walz to be that good. I mean he was an assist ...[text shortened]... person than Vance. He knows what is important to regular Americans.
I appreciate your synopsis.
If you're a college student who follows politics and care more about arguments, then Vance gave too many non-answers or straight up distortions.
For example, his constant repeating that "Kamala's policies" did such-and-such when she wasn't president. She can't take credit or blame for any policy. You can't point at Pence for anything Trump accomplished or failed at.
My view that Vance won is based entirely on how shallow I believe most Americans are. Vance was the pretty package, Walz was the meat-and-potatoes.
That said, Walz's weakest moment (and the worst performance of the debate) was regarding Tiananmen Square. If Republican seize on that and try to make it a talking point, that will hurt Kamala.
71d
@vivify saidI will say this. Not that I was alive before 1961, but most pundits would say that if you watched the Kennedy, Nixon debate, if you saw it on TV Kennedy won, but if you listened to it on radio, you would have thought Nixon won.
When I say Vance won, I'm factoring in what I think most Americans look for in a debater.
If you're a college student who follows politics and care more about arguments, then Vance gave too many non-answers or straight up distortions.
For example, his constant repeating that "Kamala's policies" did such-and-such when she wasn't president. She can't take credit or bl ...[text shortened]... nmen Square. If Republican seize on that and try to make it a talking point, that will hurt Kamala.
I listened to the Vance, Walz debate and my impression is that Walz won. If I watched I might think differently.