this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
574 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22786 readers
3139 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, just no.
So I didn't see this, yet, but please tell me that this image doesn't contain a verbatim quote of how this went down. This would be insanity
"Th-the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check me, and since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on,” Vance said."
Unfortunately it's true.
That's when I turned it off.
When they complain about being fact checked and that not fact checking them was a prerequisite for them to attend the debate, that tells you everything about what they stand for.
Fascists are easily startled but they’ll soon be back. And in greater numbers.
Lol I'm loving all the star wars references tonight.
The idea that these putzes whine about being fact-checked. This is where we are at.
And this from the bunch that wear shirts that say things like "fuck your feelings" and "facts don't care about your feelings". Then they melt the very second a fact shows up to negate their feelings about their fictions.
Actually amazing. How is this the timeline we're in
“You told me I could tell lies unchecked!”
Snowflake
And this melting snowflake may actually be our next vice president.
I like my VPs able to take criticism
Given Donny's general health, this melting snowflake may well be your next president
Looks like the source changed the headline on you:
"J.D. Vance Lashes Out After the Smallest Fact-Check in V.P. Debate"
If you could update yours, that would be great!
load more comments
(3 replies)
No. Republicans loved that Vance pushed back here.
This is not the win yall think it is.
Walz did fine. Not as good as JD Vance but I at least wasn't expecting Walz to do as well as JD Vance. Yall got the election if you keep the topic on Trump. Don't get distracted here, especially when its an L or at best, stalemate on your image.
Y'all might be brainwashed... Or perhaps you have a brain worm? That's actually an official, well-documented thing omongst Trump endorsers these days.
Unfortunately it's not about who was the most honest or had the best ideas. It's about who was more "convincing" to a "blank slate". When one person has zero problem saying anything to support their point even if its complete bullshit, it's easy to be more convincing. I still think debates should happen but it's sad that the Republicans "win at all costs" mentality elevates quick talkers who will lie to your face and make up disingenuous arguments without a care in the world. Something something about a pig in the mud and wrestling it...
Sorry about all the air quotes but it's hard to talk about this stuff without them.
What specifically do you feel Walz didn't do as well as Vance?
Convince people. The quick polls are already in.
Walz is fine though. I don't remember any mistake honestly. But the numbers are in already. We can say solidly that JD Vance did better.
22 people is hardly a survey for a national election, and is a total nonanswer. I'm asking you what you think Vance did better.
Image, body language. Looking at the camera with the "Marine Stare" to show off with body language his disdain for a particular topic or response from Walz (while Walz's body language was not nearly as effective at showing JD Vance's weird shit).
If you're not aware of what "Republicans see as weird", well... guess what?? JD Vance is, and he's able to rally people with just a glance. It was clearly effective. Though perhaps in a "deeper" political look / visual communication cue rather than actual talking.
JD Vance is the complete package. Walz is well spoken but not quite as emoted and not as good of a reaction to JD Vance.
Don't get me wrong, JD Vance is fucking nuts. But if you're not seeing JD Vance's good performance here, you're at risk at underestimating the scope of the problem here.
EDIT: Like... base things. The things people care about. Like, "Who looked more like a soldier" (especially on the meta-topic of JD Vance service record vs Tim Walz's service record), JD Vance looked more like a soldier. Base things that appeal to the ID and not logic. JD Vance is spot on on these issues.
I don't think it matters because Donald Trump is the actual topic of discussion. But JD Vance's performance is better than you'd think within a Republican mindset.
Its fine because Walz didn't need to win this debate. Walz just needed to punt and he's accomplished that. JD Vance isn't going to turn all of Trump's ills away with one good debate performance either (especially since Walz wasn't crushed or defeated).
Walz needed to introduce his personality to the country. And Walz did that. Good. Take the W for what it is, but don't overplay your hand here. This isn't like the Harris v Trump debate where Harris crushed Trump. This is actually slight win to JD Vance IMO but Walz is good enough to not damage Harris's campaign kinda debate.
JD looked and talked like an alien making his first contact with humans. He lacks any charisma, and you can tell he doesn't actually believe anything he says. And because of that, the moderators asked many times about his stance on almost everything being 180 degrees from when he started the Trump audition.
Also I don't think Republican = MAGA cult anymore. I also feel 99% of these "undecided" voters at this point are going to vote Trump, and are just reaching for something that they can say is the reason other than racism.
and you can tell he doesn’t actually believe anything he says.
100% agree on this point.
But that's also not JD Vance's goal here. JD Vance's goal is to sanewash Trump. And he accomplished that.
JD looked and talked like an alien making his first contact with humans
I kinda-sorta see where you're coming from here.
Alas: this is the marine stare. A lot of marines I know do this. I think people in the know are in the know and see JD Vance's mannerism here as charismatic.
Please, reconcile your fawning fascist fellating with the FACT that he's the last popular VP candidate in American history. I'm sure it will be an entertaining, if somewhat nauseating read.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Charismatic adjective
- exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.
I wouldn't consider staring off while trying to reword your same lie as being charismatic. There is a reason his favorability has been under water the whole time, it isn't because he was a Marine. I have met Marines, and I have seen former Marines in office that can have a normal conversation, and actually appear to care. JD lacks the ability to converse, and has zero ability to relate with anyone, even MAGA folks.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because the point of an election is to determine who has the best body language. You heard it here first folks
You all don’t seem to understand how stupid people vote. Or what’s important to them or most importantly HOW FUCKING MANY OF THEM YHERE ARE.
Trump looks like he's about to fall forward at all times, and his blank, geriatric, demented stare is honestly a spectical at this point, paired with his constant word salad.
I guess that means Kamala wins, folks. Wrap it up, everyone. It's over. Let's go home and move on.
You jest but half a country are below average intelligence. It’s not outlandish to think that many individuals in that half aren’t really following what is being said or understand it. What they can follow is the visuals. How they look, how they stand, how they move; how they “read”. And a non-trivial number of above average people still judge books by their covers.
I think the point the person above was trying to make is that Vance won the area the majority of people can evaluate and the importance of visuals.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Image, body language. Looking at the camera with the "Marine Stare" to show off with body language his disdain for a particular topic or response from Walz
JD Vance is, and he's able to rally people with just a glance. It was clearly effective. Though perhaps in a "deeper" political look / visual communication cue rather than actual talking.
JD Vance is the complete package
That's so damn horny 😄
Are you a couch?
Are you a couch?
This was the exact thought running thru my head as i forced myself through that disgusting fan fiction.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Ah yes, "the numbers". Are those the same numbers that say Trump has the bigliest rallies? Are they the BEST NUMBERS OF ALL TIME?
Yeah, you might be an idiot if it belive any of that. That's your right, though. It's a free country, for now.
load more comments
(29 replies)
Newsweek is reporting the opposite, with Walz getting a boost and not Vance.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lol sure buddy the guy lying the whole time won now let's get you to bed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)