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

politics

18966 readers
3923 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
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day 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.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours 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.

[–] ProtecyaTec@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

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

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 79 points 1 day ago

Ha, fuck you. My life was destroyed by disability, and the only drug that was helping me went from $250 a month to $3000 a month between 2015 to 2017. Everything got worse, to the point I can’t even afford to live.

This especially pisses me off.

Fuck you Vance and fuck everything you just said. It’s all lies.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago

Walz: "Well I don't run Facebook and Trump lost."

[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I will say that I worry about Vance as a candidate when he’s no longer directly tied to Trump and his madness. He’s the face of non-truth leading to fascism.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

This is it exactly.

If Trump was kicked off the ticket this would be a terrifying election, 2028 already looks like doomsday.

Fucker was way the hell too smooth.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Did he lose the 2020 election?"

"OH YEAH?!?! Well did Kamala Harris censor people?"

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

The "meta" debate is incredible here.

This literally happened right after JD Vance promised to shake hands after the election. It proves JD Vance is a fucking snake who shouldn't be trusted.

Its a self-own of colossal magnitude. I fear the full effects of which are lost upon too many as it happened in the last minutes of the debate, so too many Americans had mentally tuned out by then.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 7 points 1 day 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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (4 children)

"Under Kamala Harris' leadership."

I wish Walz would say that JOE BIDEN IS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I counted at least twenty references to the "Harris administration," or "Harris' immigration policies," and one full-on "the Harris/Biden administration."

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

He gave an answer where he named Kamala then immediately started talking about executive orders. I can't tell if it's more infuriating that they're actually trying to pretend she's been president, or that their voters are so mind blowingly stupid they actually will fall for it

load more comments (1 replies)

It's like every single response, and he just ignored it each time. Vance literally said "her policies".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)

vance won't answer if trump lost the 2020 election. oh its the lauph into cry now. man he is so weasily.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"She hasn't accomplished what she set out to do in three years" is kind of weird for the running mate of the guy who accomplished fuck all in terms of his campaign promises for four.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago

Listening to these idiotic "uncommitted voters" in the focus group are the absolute worse. It's a collection of people that love the attention of being an indecisive moron.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It's crazy how... like. Normal? This debate is. I mean they obviously disagree on stuff, but there's at least a baseline of respect here so far.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Its like Trump is the problem lol.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Oh definitely, I just kind of forgot how debates can be when his dumbass isn't in the room.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

Vance after the Debate

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

"Should we force catholic hospitals to do abortions?"

No. Because there shouldn't be catholic hospitals.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To Vance's credit, he's doing a monumental amount of damage control and sanewashing for Donald Trump and is doing a decent job at it. Yes Vance is lying through his teeth with each answer but he is markedly better at keeping his cool compared to the former Narcissist-in-Chief against VP Harris. It's a position Walz wouldn't envy. So overall I think this is within the best range of events Vance could expect.

They both did well at acknowledging each other and keeping this like a somewhat normal debate, can you imagine. That said, if any viewer can hold a thought without focusing solely on whatever deflection each candidate is doing, Walz is giving better answers, and Vance is putting way more false equivalencies in.

Walz is doing very well with his answers, he's not as calculated and rehearsed as Harris, and you know having a heart makes you mess up more than the recently changed telephone options menu, but he is doing a fantastically better job at connecting with voters than Vance did. Walz's jabs are quick and easily missed ("Wharton") but even with apolitical people, if they understand Walz's language then they'll get when he is jabbing at Vance.

Obviously I was hoping Vance would fold up into a chair and was disappointed for that to not happen. More than that though is that I'm crossing my fingers the news cycle doesn't begin pretending it's a normal election cycle just because the VP candidates could actually look each other in the eye for a night. Idk, give it 48hours and Trump will be starved enough of attention to break the spell and make people glare at him again in disgust.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Walz should have just called it out right there: your running mate is a reality denying narcissist, and you're his lapdog. You won't say he lost because you're scared daddy will yell at you if you do.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bcgm3@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Vance: I did wanna answer your question, because you did ask it...

Narrator: He did not answer her question.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 day ago

Walz drove it home on the threat to democracy, and Vance had nothing to respond.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It just occurred to be that Vance is running for president not VP. I don't think he thinks Trump will get through his term if elected.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Vance lies like he breathes, but he isn’t mentally addled like Trump. He’s a threat. A long term threat.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Vance digging deep into the reddit school of debate. ‘Explain to me how my lie is untrue please. I’ll derail all other talk until then.’

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Who is banning books right now JD?!?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Vance literally said nothing about Trump's healthcare plan. They still have nothing.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

“Why won’t you rebut my lies?”

“They aren’t true”

“Ok but like why won’t you explain how?”

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day 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.

[–] wjrii@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I did it. I opened a private tab and checked Truth Social. Trump is obsessed with Walz misspeaking on school shooters. He also screamed in all caps that he would veto a national abortion ban. Also his usual weird fixation with the moderators’ ratings in other shows, and still asserting that anyone who said he lost in 2020 is lying.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

lol Vance did not want to answer that elector question.

[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The housing shortage is caused by illegal immigrants and not drilling for oil? I have no words.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

The pregnant pause from the moderator followed by her mystified question made me laugh out loud.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Vance: "Women don't trust us because we are against abortion. We'll make them trust us by making fertility treatments more accessible."

What?

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"from AOC to Dick Cheney to Taylor Swift."

Taylor Swift confirmed more right-wing than Cheney!1!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Geek_King@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What a crazy attack from Vance, why isn't the Vice President fixing the housing crisis? Wasn't Trump President and didn't fix real issues with in his purview.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

“NRA used to teach gun safety” is a great line for purple states.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Vance: "The white guys shooting up schools with legally purchased guns are the fault of immigrants."

load more comments
view more: next ›