You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Met him over 2 decades ago on one of those habitat for humanity projects. Came out to give us a pep talk. The epitome of a decent man.Jimmy Carter hits the 100 year mark
Three things about the Walz-Vance debate:
1. Most telling moment was Walz asking if Trump lost the 2020 election and not getting an answer.
2..Vance looked and sounded much more assured, Walz sounded like, well, the assistant coach of a high school basketball team.
3. Be surprising if any of it changed the minds of even a few voters.
(In any case the last time the choice of VP really mattered was when Nixon picked Spiro Agnew on the grounds that no one was going to assassinate him with Agnew in line to take over.)
1. Most telling moment was Walz asking if Trump lost the 2020 election and not getting an answer.
2..Vance looked and sounded much more assured, Walz sounded like, well, the assistant coach of a high school basketball team.
3. Be surprising if any of it changed the minds of even a few voters.
(In any case the last time the choice of VP really mattered was when Nixon picked Spiro Agnew on the grounds that no one was going to assassinate him with Agnew in line to take over.)
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,624
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
A fair and unbiased appraisal. You'll probably get pelters for it.Three things about the Walz-Vance debate:
1. Most telling moment was Walz asking if Trump lost the 2020 election and not getting an answer.
2..Vance looked and sounded much more assured, Walz sounded like, well, the assistant coach of a high school basketball team.
3. Be surprising if any of it changed the minds of even a few voters.
(In any case the last time the choice of VP really mattered was when Nixon picked Spiro Agnew on the grounds that no one was going to assassinate him with Agnew in line to take over.)
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
From what I’ve seen Vance did well and just about edged it. He’s got terrible people skills, but I’d say is quite bright, despite the shit that comes out of his mouth from time to time. He is far more likely to be become President than Walz for various reasons, not least the mental capabilities (and associated directions of travel) of their respective running mates. As well as their ages. Can’t see 25th Amendment not being invoked against Trump in the next four years, if he wins. He’s in a far, far worse state mentally, than Biden was in 2020, and, fwiw, appears to be declining fast.
It was also refreshing to see a debate conducted in a civilised fashion, which merely serves to underline the toxicity of Vance’s malign, and cognitively declining running mate. Anyone who cannot see this from observing Trump’s output simply isn’t capable of objective thought on the subject, of which lamentably, there are many.
Don’t think that will have made any difference, which I suspect, in their own way, each party will be relieved at. Harris’, because they appear to currently be ahead on points, and Trump’s because of the two, Vance was more likely to say something as ridiculous as what his boss did, which based on what I’ve seen, he absolutely did not.
It was also refreshing to see a debate conducted in a civilised fashion, which merely serves to underline the toxicity of Vance’s malign, and cognitively declining running mate. Anyone who cannot see this from observing Trump’s output simply isn’t capable of objective thought on the subject, of which lamentably, there are many.
Don’t think that will have made any difference, which I suspect, in their own way, each party will be relieved at. Harris’, because they appear to currently be ahead on points, and Trump’s because of the two, Vance was more likely to say something as ridiculous as what his boss did, which based on what I’ve seen, he absolutely did not.
Vance was smoother, and is pretty much a natural in that format. Fact checking post the debate shows that a lot of what he said was incorrect or misleading but I don't think too many care about that if it's not picked up at the time.
Walz did alright, but much less polished and his answer on the China trip was a pretty awful one.
Both of them avoided answering pretty simple questions which I didn't like.
I'd score it 55-45 Vance, but no significant impact on the vote.
Walz did alright, but much less polished and his answer on the China trip was a pretty awful one.
Both of them avoided answering pretty simple questions which I didn't like.
I'd score it 55-45 Vance, but no significant impact on the vote.
Can you give a few examples?Vance was smoother, and is pretty much a natural in that format. Fact checking post the debate shows that a lot of what he said was incorrect or misleading but I don't think too many care about that if it's not picked up at the time.
Walz did alright, but much less polished and his answer on the China trip was a pretty awful one.
Both of them avoided answering pretty simple questions which I didn't like.
I'd score it 55-45 Vance, but no significant impact on the vote.
I can give a few examples of Walz lying. Actually Vance was able to point it out on the fly. He was that prepared.
Vance simply was on a different level. That said, VP debates don't move the needle. But it's clear JD Vance is going to be a problem in future.
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 14,777
All good and everything but I had Carter popping off on my list of things that would shape this election. Him hanging on to vote for Kamala is a nice gesture but just like Obiwan Kenobi in star wars. He would have done more good dying at the right time.Jimmy Carter hits the 100 year mark
Google any number of articles written about fact checking since the debate ended.Can you give a few examples?