The Tim Walz thread.

[Will B Good]

6 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Fox paid $787.5m for its 2020 lies. 

 

 

....and aren't they in court next week facing another huge bill for dissing another voting machine company......who Lindell has had to pay out millions to???

 

 

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

I don't think they will hate him....they will dislike his policies for sure.....but he has never cheated on his wife, he has never paid a hooker $180,000 not to sleep with him, he hasn't even supported the claim that the election was stolen, he doesn't grab women by the pussy .... he is a genuine family man........even with any faults he has, he is in a different league to Trump.

 

 

 

 

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?

[earlinclaifornia]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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?

In comparrison to the daily Trump reailty is what you mean?

[Hanaguma]

Interestingly, Walz actually spoke more than Vance in the debate, according to CNN.  I guess what he had to say just didn't matter that much. JD was succinct and meaningful. 

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

In comparrison to the daily Trump reailty is what you mean?

 

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.

[earlinclaifornia]

37 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

The Daily Telegraph is politically conservative and has endorsed the Conservative Party at every UK general election since 1945.

Edited October 2 by metisdead
Odd formatting reset to normal.

[Cameroni]

37 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

The Daily Telegraph is politically conservative and has endorsed the Conservative Party at every UK general election since 1945.

 

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.

[earlinclaifornia]

9 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

JD could not defend Trump. JD is trumpism

trumpism wil die and JD is forgotten

Edited October 2 by earlinclaifornia

[earlinclaifornia]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

Only in Your mind is that so.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Only in Your mind is that so.

 

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.

[John Drake]

Of the four people running on the presidential/vice presidential ticket, Walz is clearly the worst. Vance showed an enormous gap between himself and Walz. Walz simply looks terrible. BTW, I remember forty or fifty years ago political consultants saying we would never get a bald man running for the top two offices again after Eisenhower, because they look so old and uninspiring. (Joe Biden got hair transplants back in the 80s.) Humphrey and McGovern had partial hair covering. That leaves, I think, just Ford and now Walz as the baldest candidates since Ike and Adlai Stevenson.

[Will B Good]

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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?

 

 

He still is....I'm just looking at this purely from a what's best for JD Vance perspective.

[earlinclaifornia]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

He did not but we can agree that we believe differently

Edited October 2 by earlinclaifornia

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

He did not but we can gree that we believe differently

 

 

On the understanding he is wrong though.

 

 

[Cameroni]

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.

[Cameroni]

18 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

He did not but we can agree that we believe differently

 

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/

[Cameroni]

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

[Fat is a type of crazy]

35 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I think you are getting a bit excited. By what I saw - admittedly not the whole thing - and by what I've read - they both did pretty good. To conclude Vance won overall may not be unreasonable but keep in mind his responses on things like January 6 and who won the last election, abortion, health care etc are things that will resonate with a lot of voters and his answers - though confidently delivered - sometimes didn't have much substance. 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think you are getting a bit excited. By what I saw - admittedly not the whole thing - and by what I've read - they both did pretty good. To conclude Vance won overall may not be unreasonable but keep in mind his responses on things like January 6 and who won the last election, abortion, health care etc are things that will resonate with a lot of voters and his answers - though confidently delivered - sometimes didn't have much substance. 

 

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.

 

 

[connda]

So, by his own admission Waltz is "friends with school shooters."  Nice

 

[John Drake]

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Walz even looked unhappy when he wasn't talking. He made some arguments, but they were poor and badly presented.

 

 

Yep.

 

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, connda said:

So, by his own admission Waltz is "friends with school shooters."  Nice

 

 

Shades of Joe Biden.

 

Hilarious.

[Cameroni]

Just now, John Drake said:

 

Yep.

 

 

He looked weird and terrifyingly intense when he was speaking.

 

Just unpleasant, you recoil when he see him speak.

 

Poor choice by Kamala.

[G_Money]

The self proclaimed “Knuckle Head “. was no match for the smooth as silk Vance.

[Hanaguma]

48 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think you are getting a bit excited. By what I saw - admittedly not the whole thing - and by what I've read - they both did pretty good. To conclude Vance won overall may not be unreasonable but keep in mind his responses on things like January 6 and who won the last election, abortion, health care etc are things that will resonate with a lot of voters and his answers - though confidently delivered - sometimes didn't have much substance. 

On the issues that Americans actually care about the most- immigration and the economy and inflation, the GOP is ahead. And Vance also trounced Walz.

 

The mods tried to save poor Tim by pivoting to unimportant stuff like January 6 and who won the last election. It really didnt work, and to most voters really doesnt matter.  

 

I was very surprised that there was no discussion of the Ukraine/Russia war, not of the threat of China. 

[John Drake]

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

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.

 

 

One thing I do think is unfair is to hit Walz with all the China stuff. He didn't do anything that the entire political, educational, and business establishment wasn't doing. Walz was a tadpole in comparison to the damage done by the likes of the Bushes, Clintons, and Obama as well as the Gateses, Cooks, and Jim Rogers who led the sellout of America.

Edited October 2 by John Drake

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

One thing I do think is unfair is to hit Walz with all the China stuff. He didn't do anything that the entire political, educational, and business establishment wasn't doing. Walz was a tadpole in comparison to the damage done by the likes of the Bushes, Clintons, and Obama as well as the Gateses, Cooks, and Jim Rogers who led the sellout of America.

 

Well, Jim Rogers was really an investor who followed the tide after it became clear that China would become an economic power player. That development was always going to happen once China sorted itself out. However, it is fair to call Walz on a blatant lie, ie saying he was in China when he was not.

 

[John Drake]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Well, Jim Rogers was really an investor who followed the tide after it became clear that China would become an economic power player. That development was always going to happen once China sorted itself out. However, it is fair to call Walz on a blatant lie, ie saying he was in China when he was not.

 

 

I am referring more broadly to Walz's so-called Chinese connections over the years. Unless we see evidence he is advancing CCP interests, I don't think he should be put on the rack for going there as a teacher or taking students there on study abroad trips. Look, Walz is a really, really stupid guy. He's inauthentic, likes to brag, and exaggerate his past. Between Harris and Walz, I don't know who is the more inauthentic. It is terrifying to think the US could be led by the pair next year. It's also terrifying that it could have Trump presiding over things. I just don't understand how things got to this level of bad.

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

I am referring more broadly to Walz's so-called Chinese connections over the years. Unless we see evidence he is advancing CCP interests, I don't think he should be put on the rack for going there as a teacher or taking students there on study abroad trips. Look, Walz is a really, really stupid guy. He's inauthentic, likes to brag, and exaggerate his past. Between Harris and Walz, I don't know who is the more inauthentic. It is terrifying to think the US could be led by the pair next year. It's also terrifying that it could have Trump presiding over things. I just don't understand how things got to this level of bad.

 

Oh I see, apologies. I have no issues with that at all and I agree with you, Walz should not be taken to task for that. Developing ties with other nations is beneficial if it is done on the level Walz did.

 

 

Edited October 2 by Cameroni

[cdemundo]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

This was a completely different JD Vance.

He wasn't the ship disturber that he usually plays on the campaign trail.

He was reasonable and measured, quite different from the way he has presented himself in the past.

 

Walz did not do very well.