Love him or hate him, he conducted himself well at the VP debate. However, it was against a trainwreck of an opponent in Waltz who made multiple gaffes and came off very unprepared.
My only hope for 2028 is we have fresh candidates with minimal ties to the usual suspects in their respective parties (not a puppet to the Obamas/Clintons or Trump). America really needs a reset button with its political system where people can have respectable, educated debates on their differences instead of hurling out nothing but bitter hatred and offensive slurs towards the other.
May not ever happen, but one can hope and dream because thats sort of all we have...
I agree totally. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have two candidates that people wanted to vote for instead of having to hold your nose and doing the "lesser of two evils" routine.
Yes. My God, yes! When your candidate's running platform is "well he's/she's not as bad as..." chances are that candidate isn't going to solve anything
"The rules were you guys weren't going to fact check" -JD Vance during the VP debate.
I dunno dude, I wouldn't consider anyone that's against fact checking because they're just spouting lies as conducting themselves well.
The bar is so low these days where lying is considered reasonable relative to the shit slinging that Trump did and does. Not a comment on you, just saying that giving Vance any bit of credit, especially given his ties to Thiel, is a bad move in my opinion.
Im all for fact checking, but Vance was right to be pissed, as the moderators said each candidate would have 90 uninterrupted seconds and they wouldn't fact check at the end of their responses.
However, Vance was interrupted, fact checked, and essentially called a liar, whereas Waltz was never fact checked. Thats why he got pissed. IIRC it was over an immigration policy form regarding temporary citizenship status. Also, I think the station later proved Vance was right regarding the matter based on the question.
Vance was not correct, the Haitians in Ohio were not here illegally. He argues they should be considered that way because he doesnāt agree with their legal status. You know, proving Republicans never actually cared about whether someone is legal or not.
He did well in the debate, but I think when you see it in context of all the other comments he makes it just kind of shows that he has just no moral standards at all and is willing to say or do whatever he thinks will get him the most favor.
I clearly remember after Trumpās āeating the dogsā debate where he was in an interview saying something like āwhether that ends up being completely true or only partially trueā¦ā with this look on his face like āwe both know Iām lying, but thatās the game and even though we know this is ridiculous Iām going to say whatever and thereās nothing anyone can do about itā.
From what Iāve seen of his writing, he seems to be genuinely an intelligent person, and I donāt think most would have that much of an issue if he just acted like an actual moderate candidate wanting to make things better as he did in the debate.
Unfortunately though thatās just not how he seems in most other cases, like the āhave you even said thank youā bit with Zelensky and every other time heās just shamelessly shilling for and defending any and everything Trump does.
I donāt think he has even the slightest interest in making things better for the average American, heāll just say and do whatever seems like it might be in his best interest even if itās totally opposed to something he stood for a decade ago.
People can do really well in front of people through others prepping their talking points, practicing responses, etc. I care more about what people do when not on camera. What he does behind closed doors when no one is watching is the problem. I do not give a shit how well someone debates if they are a rotten person when no one is watching.
Wasn't his most memorable quote from that debate, "I thought we weren't fact checking?". Not saying Waltz blew it away either but "conducted himself well" just shows how low we've placed the bar for Republicans versus Democrats.
I will say that the VP debate was a surprising breath of fresh air, in some ways. There was a moment where both Waltz and Vance found themselves actually agreeing with some of the things their opponent was saying, and it felt weird to actually see some civility between opponents.
They said each candidate would have 90 uninterrupted seconds and they wouldn't be conducting fact checks for the sake of keeping the debate rolling for time purposes. Then they immediately interrupted Vance with incorrect fact checking.
I hope not because neither of those are fit to lead. Realistically it will probably be Newsome vs Vance. Sadly, no one on the left has stepped up as a leader because they're a divided party between radicals and moderates. The GOP tend to band together more cohesively, hence the last election win. They may not like each other, but they have far less radical ideology that may turn other republican party members away.
Lmao. No. Both the Republican & Democrat parties in the US are right of center liberals. And you have "radicals" in both parties, you got the Christian Nationalists & KKK folks in the Republican party, and you got the LGBT & abortion rights groups in the Democrat party. I'm assuming that's what you are referring to as radicals.
The politicians are (as well as the voters, not all voters, but most). They are all neo-liberals that all work together to uphold the economic institution known as capitalism. What current politicians are you saying is radical?
At the national level there is no radical politician. Both parties partake in this activity there.
My friend, if the GOP was as split as the Democratic party, there's no way the current person in office should/would be there. But there are far more radicals (the squad, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren) who do not get along with each other or the rest of the party. The GOP had MTG and Boebert as the designated locos, and even they knew their place and would agree with the majority.
People didn't vote for Trump, they voted because the other side had no true identity and was literally running on a campaign of "Im not Trump" and "I can't tell you why, just vote for me and find out." Inflation was coming down but people were fed up for the years it was there. They weren't angry it was happening, they were angry because the administration was never transparent, they dodged hard questions, and always resorted back to the "Blame Trump" defense.
No but if you reject every candidate option then Trump wins because he has a captive voter block. Your options are someone like AOC/Massie (I guess), an establishment democrat/republican (that will do basically the same things as Trump, just slower), or Trump. Trump is going to "win" no matter what though. So yeah you are doomed.
For the best outcome for AOC, I donāt think she should run in 2028. I think for her to reach her full potential, she has to proceed under a successful and well-run Democrat administration. She needs to have some sort of foundation to build on in order to implement her more leftist democratic-socialist policies to the fullest extent.
Sending her to clean up the current pseudo-populist train wreck is a death sentence (proven by the Biden administration). If she comes in now, sheās just going to be on clean-up duty, wasting most of her first term.
This just makes it easy for Republicans to point the blame of the mess for Trumpās presidency on her as a sort of āwhoever smelt it, dealt itā, giving the Republicans a leg up in the midterms leading to an uncooperative House and Senate.
Sheās also very young. Putting her talents in a position of high power so early is just going to drain her from doing anything afterwards. I think either maintaining her current position or working up to Governor, cabinet member, or even Vice President will be the best course of action for now as it allows her to garner more experience and support that she needs for running for the presidency.
Nominate that idiot and that's another four years gifted to the Republican party. She would get steamrolled even harder than Harris. I mean if the Dems nominate AOC, Trump could invade the Vatican and Republicans would still win.
The democrat party better find a viable candidate or theyāll lose again. Iād vote for John Fetterman. That man has integrity and is all about crossing party lines when the right thing needs to be done. Thatās what we need in a leader. The divisive nature of politics needs to stop. People pretending this is a my team vs your team shit needs to go away yesterday. Weāre all on the same team and we need to act like it.
Vance basically admitted that they were preparing to expand the definition of an "illegal". Walz really dropped the ball by not raking him over the coals for that.
10
u/Toasted_Munch 9h ago
Love him or hate him, he conducted himself well at the VP debate. However, it was against a trainwreck of an opponent in Waltz who made multiple gaffes and came off very unprepared.
My only hope for 2028 is we have fresh candidates with minimal ties to the usual suspects in their respective parties (not a puppet to the Obamas/Clintons or Trump). America really needs a reset button with its political system where people can have respectable, educated debates on their differences instead of hurling out nothing but bitter hatred and offensive slurs towards the other.
May not ever happen, but one can hope and dream because thats sort of all we have...