The Tim Walz thread.

[earlinclaifornia]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Tim Walz did okay in the debate with Vance. He was nervous, and screwed up some lines.

 

JD Vance came across as a slick lawyer who lies a lot.

 

The debate will be forgotten soon.

Yes, Walz did start very nervous and after the break got himself going much better.

 

[earlinclaifornia]

I certainty never supported a National Ban to abortion.

Make it illegal.

Video proof says the following.

Lied when called out with proof  

Edited 4 hours ago by earlinclaifornia

[earlinclaifornia]

22 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Vance clearly defeated Walz in the debate. 

 

A win for the Republicans.

A CBS News flash poll found 42% of debate watchers thought Vance won, while 41% thought Walz wone — a near tie.

[Will B Good]

23 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

So wrong but expected you would say that under any circumstance.

Can you provide your personal opinion?

 

His personal opinion....seriously?

 

Can I guess what that might be....? 

[earlinclaifornia]

5 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

His personal opinion....seriously?

 

Can I guess what that might be....? 

Could he answer with something genuine?

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

A CBS News flash poll found 42% of debate watchers thought Vance won, while 41% thought Walz wone — a near tie.

Pretty much as I predicted. 

Won't change the election at all.

[Jingthing]

42 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Tim Walz did okay in the debate with Vance. He was nervous, and screwed up some lines.

 

JD Vance came across as a slick lawyer who lies a lot.

 

The debate will be forgotten soon.

Slick and thoroughly fake and unlikable. 

[Cameroni]

35 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

So wrong but expected you would say that under any circumstance.

Can you provide your personal opinion?

 

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.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Pretty much as I predicted. 

Won't change the election at all.

I agree and now I do think Harris is going to win

Two liars in a pod.

 

I am leaning to relaxed,

Thanks JD

[Cameroni]

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.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Slick and thoroughly fake and unlikable. 

I didn't watch it all but I thought Vance was able to show he is intelligent and not that weird and in my opinion not that unlikeable as politicians go. That might help him and Trump. Of course an online search can make the reality of Vance look pretty bad.   One thing that might hurt Trump is people will see that a civil and reasonably sensible  debate is possible and see in comparison how poor a candidate Trump is. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Fat is a type of crazy

[Will B Good]

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

One thing that might hurt Trump is people will see that a civil and reasonably sensible  debate is possible and see in comparison how poor a candidate Trump is. 

 

Good point, well made.

 

I think Vance might be quite comfortable with Trump losing..... Trump's dead in the water if he does lose.......then in steps who other than Mr JD Vance, just in time for the 2028 election!!!

 

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

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

I didn't watch it all but I thought Vance was able to show he is intelligent and not that weird and in my opinion not that unlikeable as politicians go. That might help him and Trump. Of course an online search can make Vance look pretty bad.   One thing that might hurt Trump is people will see that a civil and reasonably sensible  debate is possible and see in comparison how poor a candidate Trump is. 

The people at MSNBC agree that Vance was not at all like he is normally as in person everyday.

He managed to look sance even though he lied as much as he did

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

Good point, well made.

 

I think Vance might be quite comfortable with Trump losing..... Trump's dead in the water if he does lose.......then in steps who other than Mr JD Vance, just in time for the 2028 election!!!

 

 

 

Whether or not Trump wins, Vance has positioned himself well for 2028. His performance was stellar. He dispelled all the corporate media BS about him being unlikeable or strange. His performance was smooth but not slick, his personality really shined through.  

 

Even the liberal media are admitting that Walz got bodied.   

[earlinclaifornia]

I'm so ready for November 5th

 

I still beieve Trump will show to debate

[Cameroni]

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/

 

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Good point, well made.

 

I think Vance might be quite comfortable with Trump losing..... Trump's dead in the water if he does lose.......then in steps who other than Mr JD Vance, just in time for the 2028 election!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Just adding to that.....I think Vance recognises he will be onto a hiding to nothing if he now becomes VP......he will then have a four year old croc of s**t to carry into the 2028 election having been Trump's whipping boy.

 

Better for him if Trump loses for sure.

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

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/

 

 

 

Who won the Vance v Walz debate? Our experts are unanimous

 

What experts???

 

 

 

Read this and see how serious, professional journalism is presented.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y0863ry88o

Edited 3 hours ago by Will B Good

[earlinclaifornia]

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

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.

The Health Care was just  JD dancing.

[earlinclaifornia]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Whether or not Trump wins, Vance has positioned himself well for 2028. His performance was stellar. He dispelled all the corporate media BS about him being unlikeable or strange. His performance was smooth but not slick, his personality really shined through.  

 

Even the liberal media are admitting that Walz got bodied.   

Link for that proof 

[Cameroni]

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

I didn't watch it all but I thought Vance was able to show he is intelligent and not that weird and in my opinion not that unlikeable as politicians go. That might help him and Trump. Of course an online search can make the reality of Vance look pretty bad.   One thing that might hurt Trump is people will see that a civil and reasonably sensible  debate is possible and see in comparison how poor a candidate Trump is. 

 

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.

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Whether or not Trump wins, Vance has positioned himself well for 2028. His performance was stellar. He dispelled all the corporate media BS about him being unlikeable or strange. His performance was smooth but not slick, his personality really shined through.  

 

Even the liberal media are admitting that Walz got bodied.   

 

As I point out in a follow up post.....his chances of becoming POTUS will be severely curtailed if Trump wins and he has four years of Trumpism to defend in 2028.

 

Better to come into 2028  clean cut with no baggage

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Link for that proof 

 

 

Fox? 

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Who won the Vance v Walz debate? Our experts are unanimous

 

What experts???

 

 

 

Read this and see how serious, professional journalism is presented.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y0863ry88o

 

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.

Edited 3 hours ago by Cameroni

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Fox? 

Fox paid $787.5m for its 2020 lies. 

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

Did you understand the point?

I can see you refering to BBC and Telegraph as what was witnessed by Americans?

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

 

Exactly.....proper fair reporting....OMG...... you don't even recognise you are shooting yourself in both feet with the above quotes.

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

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.

[earlinclaifornia]

Just now, Will B Good said:

 

 

Exactly.....proper fair reporting....OMG...... you don't even recognise you are shooting yourself in both feet with the above quotes.

 

 

 

Hence why he is the best MAGA have going.