Cameroni

More pointless waffle crawling by the feet.

Well, it was Vance who wiped the floor with Walz. Your boy Walz took one hell of a beating.

Absolutely, hilarious waffling for 2 minutes straihgt only to admit, when pressed "I misspoke". Embarassing. Clearly Trump made the better pick.

It's impossible, because your post had no "reasoning". You were talking about NORAD and accusing me of being paid by RT. Pretty stupid stuff. It didn't sail over my head, but rather crawled by my feet.

Well, Vance was fearless in the debate . He wiped the floor with Walz in fact. Talk about spineless, lol.

Much more fun was Walz wriggling out of his lie that he was in China during the democracy protests:

He looked weird and terrifyingly intense when he was speaking. Just unpleasant, you recoil when he see him speak. Poor choice by Kamala.

Shades of Joe Biden. Hilarious.

Instead of doing the same old boring standard response when you hear a message you don't like, ie paint the messenger black, why not look at the argument he made? Is Musk not right, that illiegal immigration will benefit the Democrats massively? And going beyond that are the Democrats not supporting votes for 16 year olds for this very reason? Are they not trying to change the Electoral College system for this very reason? The Democrats ARE trying to mold the system in their favour. Only Trump can stop it.

It's fun to see the Ukraine fan boys in panic, scrambling wildly and flapping in the wind. Fact is NORAD has nothing to do with this issue, I never posted on NORAD, and calling anyone who disagrees with you a foreign agent, is well, schoolboy nonsense. Go stand in the corner and wear a pointy hat. Then watch KhunLa's video again and learn something.

Watch the debate again and look in detail at Vance's responses. He was flying like Superman. Walz even looked unhappy when he wasn't talking. He made some arguments, but they were poor and badly presented. There's absolutely no doubt at all that Vance won. Walz had to admit he LIED about being at Tiannamen Square. He wasn't just unprepared, he looked stupid and like a liar. Imagine how embarassing it was to admit you lied about being at Tinannamen square. I just felt sorry for Walz.

So Hillary did not advise Kamala to delete the emails, like Hilary did? "Yes, cause you'd be in jail"

The Independent: Vance thrived on stage while Walz struggled to find his footing Ohio Senator JD Vance appeared more confident, polished and prepared than Minnesota Governor Tim Walz during the vice presidential debate in New York City. Meanwhile, Walz struggled to find his footing, he appeared nervous and unsure in some of his answers. The Democratic vice presidential nominee got more comfortable in the 90-minute debate, but his even-keeled answers failed to outshine some of Vance’s. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/vance-walz-vice-presidential-debate-live-updates-b2622339.html

Really? Strange, USA Today disagrees with you. "Winners Vance Losers Walz " https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/02/walz-vance-winners-losers/75351363007/

Vance was outrageous, when he was asked why he did not support banning semi-automatic rifles, he turned it around by saying that Harris has left in so many illegal immigrants there are now more illegal guns in the country than ever. And most gun crime comes from illegal guns. Just next level debating skills. He answered the question truthfully and at the same time indicted Harris for her immigration failure. Just jaw dropping peformance by Vance.

When the left wing Politico concedes Vance won, I think it's time for you to admit defeat and face reality. Say it with me "Vance won, Walz lost". You'll feel better. Because you'll be in synch with the universe.

I know, you can't objectively argue with the points made that Vance was miles better than Walz, since he clearly was, so you have to attack the messenger. However, the Telegraph is a highly respected British broadsheet, and they clearly say Vance won. The BBC also said Vance won, albeit in more moderate terms. Everyone knows it. Vance won. Walz lost. It's just obvious. You can try and paint the messenger black all you want. The ultimate reality is what it is. Walz performed terribly, Vance like a superstar. Even the ultra left wing Politico concedes, Vance won: "JD Vance won the VP debate — but only on style The Ohio senator has a reputation for knowing when to turn up the heat. The debate proved he can turn on the charm, too. JD Vance not only was polished, but offered a more cutting critique of Kamala Harris than his running mate, Donald Trump, managed in his own debate with her last month. Tim Walz, on the other hand, took a while to warm up — and wasn’t that great even when he did. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-vp-debate-roundtable-00181905 As you can see the left wing experts of Politico agree with the Telegraph experts.

No in comparison to Walz, he was supposed to be the normal, country boy. Turned out he came across as weird, stuttering, uniformed and a liar. Not to mention a poor debater. The supposedly weird Vance, by contrast, came across as a well mannered, smiling soft spoken man, and objectively, as a superb debater. Trump, obviously knew what he was doing , and his VP pick was miles better than Harris' VP pick The only reason Kamala Harris picked Walz was because his extreme pro-abortion stance chimed with her own extreme stance on abortion .That came to bite her in the derriere ultimately.

You may have a point, Vance has the knack for winning by embracing his opponent with a smile. Almost Chinese in his style. Interesting you came around, I thought he was a cross dressing couch shagger to the left?

The whole manner of Walz was weird. When he talked he seemed massively agitated, his eyebrows and forehead sprained in an uneasy intensity, his tiny eyes ripped wide open and staring intently like an outraged bull being castrated. He looked like a serial killer. Hopefully small children weren't watching.

I already read it. From your own link: "Early on, Vance's answers Tuesday night flowed clearly and he seemed more confident, while Walz stumbled, seeming uncomfortable, stilted and unfamiliar with certain topics. A tempered debate, with few political body blows, also probably served Vance best in the end, as it gave him space to defend running mate Donald Trump, and smooth over some of the former president’s rougher edges. If Vance was picked because he puts ideological meat on the bones of Trump’s conservative populism, on Tuesday night Vance put a polite, humble face on them, as well. Vance’s strong performance is likely to buoy Republicans in the days ahead. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y0863ry88o So the BBC agrees with the Telegraph, Vance won it. They're just being more diplomatic about the very obvious.

I believe that should Trump lose JD Vance will come to power at some point, and he is far more ideologically intense, and right wing, than Trump. Should JD Vance ever come to power the Democrats will hate him more than Trump. I was seriously impressed with Vance, he kept it real, came across as likeable, genuine, generous and made no mistakes. Walz, imagine having to admit you lied about being at Tiannamen square, when you were not. So embarassing.

Impartial Brits calling it right: Who won the Vance v Walz debate? Our experts are unanimous JD Vance ditched his awkward manner with a warm and accomplished display, while Tim Walz stuttered and came unstuck over Tiananmen claim A clear win for the man with the harder job" On Vance: "His answers on policy issues were detailed, and he spoke repeatedly about children and families in a way that was designed to appeal to the female voters who are driving Ms Harris’s poll lead." On Walz It was Mr Walz, the man picked by Ms Harris for his folksy Midwestern charm, who came unstuck in front of the cameras. Stuttering over his words, getting agitated and failing to pick up on some of the most obvious attack lines to use against Mr Vance, he looked out of his depth on the stage. At one point, he mistakenly said he had become “friends with school shooters”, while apparently referring to their parents. Perhaps the worst moment of his night came when he was challenged about his claim that he was in China at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Acknowledging he can be a “knucklehead”, he admitted that he “misspoke” and that he actually travelled to Hong Kong months later. “I will get caught up in the rhetoric,” he said. His pre-scripted attack lines on “Project 2025” and the claim that Trump and Mr Vance would impose a nationwide pregnancy register came unstuck when his opponent gave a surprisingly moderate answer on abortion. “We’ve got to do a better job at winning back people’s trust,” Mr Vance replied. “Donald Trump and I are committed to pursuing pro family policies.” On Vance: Why was JD Vance, a hardcore MAGA convert with apparently limited electoral ability, selected as VP over Marco Rubio or Tim Scott? Tonight showed us why. Putting his Yale-honed debate skills to the test, the senator from Ohio launched a series of forensically devastating attacks on the Biden administration, and called into question the judgement of the VP’s pick for VP. Vance’s obvious advantages were made clear in the first few minutes of the debate, with a clear response to the unfolding tensions in the Middle East after Iran’s massive rocket barrage of Israel, he presented a powerful rhetorical defense of a vital ally while craftily reminding voters that no new wars were started under Donald Trump’s premiership. It’s hard to believe this was the same man who notoriously struggles to engage one-on-one with voters, and there were no sign of his occasional awkward vocal tics and stilted delivery. This was pure Ivy-league gloss. On Walz: And what about Hong Kong? Walz’s face contorted into a Bidenesque confused grimace. Hadn’t he once claimed to have been in Hong Kong during the brutal crackdown at Tiananmen Square, despite actually residing in Nebraska? Walz awkwardly tried to dodge the question, before conceding that he “misspoke”. Looking like a distracted student called upon by a teacher to answer a tricky math question, Walz’s performance hardly improved in the second half of the debate. In one particularly brutal episode, Vance systemically rattled off the material policy wins of the Trump administration like lowered inflation and higher take-home pay. Vance empathised with the “tough job” of “whackamole” Walz would have to play to avoid giving the former president credit. Gulping, his eyes started to widen. If presidential debates don’t matter, VP debates are so unimportant as to hardly warrant a second thought. Normally. But this is no normal election cycle. A bizarre debate performance exposed Biden’s mental infirmity, setting in motion a brutally quick defenestration of a sitting president and queen-making of his lowly regarded deputy. The Harris campaign has since sought to sustain itself purely on good vibes and high energy, a strategy that has failed to move the all-important independent voters in a nail-biter of an election. Make no mistake, Walz’s folksy gee-shucks routine was a purposeful attempt to bring those voters on board. But like his boss, Walz has proved that a compelling media narrative does not make a leader. In a nail-biter election, this dud performance could make all the difference. The real mistaken VP pick revealed himself on Tuesday night — and he wasn’t the man from Ohio. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/02/who-won-vance-walz-vice-presidential-debate/

JD Vance however, blew it away. What a performance. In his first question he already oustcored Walz by THANKING him, the American people, and talking about his own backgorund. He did not pander to the moderators. He was fluid and lucid, and fearless. Vance is a totally different calibre than Walz. Great pick by Trump.

Sure, Walz was quite poor, in the first sentence he mixed up Iran and Israel. He looked terribly nervous. Really bad. Even the BBC agrees Vance won.