krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
It's on CBS
JD Vance's time is up
- Thread starter krtek a houby
- Start date
Yossarian
⏭️
Didn't watch the whole thing but from what I saw, Walz is a much shittier debater than I expected, it's a good thing that VP debates don't decide elections - the campaign should maybe have told him not to boast about the Dick Cheney endorsement. And not to talk about being friends with school shooters. And, when asked about his lies about when and how many times he visited Hong Kong, to have a response better than "Derp, I'm a knucklehead."
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
He did, but he was definitely slicker than Walz. Not a complete train wreck, but not inspiring either.
Rompipalle
“Mad as hell & I’m not going to take this anymore”
... if lying through his teeth is a measure of success.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
...In the context of the incredibly low bar set by american electoral politics, he may have crossed it. People seem comfortable with omnidirectional bullshitting, it's the unhinged ranting that a lot of them can't seem to get past. The tragedy in all of this is that most of the world is now hanging off the voting intentions of a couple of hundred thousand voters in an electorate comprising of over 200 million. No wonder it's a fucking basket case.... if lying through his teeth is a measure of success.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
From todays Graun - it appears its business as usual for both parties, with the usual talk of Israel being an ally etc
One of the most notable aspects of the debate was the framing by the moderators, accepted dutifully by the candidates. It was taken as a given that Israel’s wars on Gaza and Lebanon and its expansionist ambitions are morally just. It was taken as a given that the United States should have a bellicose foreign policy in the Middle East. It was taken as a given that immigrants are hurting the economy and spreading crime. The moderators even framed a question around the notion that building new housing could harm the economy. That these ideas are considered unbiased and non-partisan is an extremely bleak sign for the country’s near future.
Moustafa Bayoumi: ‘A civil encounter with no overwhelming winner’
The first question the vice-presidential candidates were asked in their debate was, frankly speaking, bonkers: “Would you support or oppose a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran?” The vast majority of the globe is waiting for the United States to exercise real global leadership and bring, at a bare minimum, temporary calm to the eastern Mediterranean region. But CBS apparently felt it wiser to ask the candidates whether they supported escalating the war now or escalating the war later.Ben Davis: ‘Vance made extremist Trumpism sound moderate and reasonable’
One of the most notable aspects of the debate was the framing by the moderators, accepted dutifully by the candidates. It was taken as a given that Israel’s wars on Gaza and Lebanon and its expansionist ambitions are morally just. It was taken as a given that the United States should have a bellicose foreign policy in the Middle East. It was taken as a given that immigrants are hurting the economy and spreading crime. The moderators even framed a question around the notion that building new housing could harm the economy. That these ideas are considered unbiased and non-partisan is an extremely bleak sign for the country’s near future.
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Fact checking is clearly anti freedom of speech
Similar threads
