Walz came across like a human, while Vance pulled off an amazing impression of one.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
60 points (84.1% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26690 readers
2287 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly that's a great way of putting it. He doesn't freak out on TV the way Trump does but imo that makes his goals seem a lot scarier than Trump's.
You can tell the difference in their sincerity simply in the way they react to each other while speaking. Walz is listening and you can see him nod when the leather puppet makes a point that actually has some validity and then shake his head or turn it to face him dramatically when he says something ridiculous.
On the other hand you can see the cogs turning behind Vance's mask while Walz is talking trying to connect it to some conspiracy or figure out how to spin it to mean that America is bad unless there's an orange dictator at the wheel.
"Pass the bill, James!"
Amazing impression?
Terrifying impression.
Donald J Trump and his quasar sized ego are the only thing standing between us and a Vance presidency. 2028 will be horrifying.
For anyone who is politically involved and knows the issues, Walz won by having better and more consistent positions; as well as Vance saying some scary fascist level shit
But I fear that most undecided voters aren't in that camp, and for those people Vance did well just be being coherent and vaguely normal.
Vance lied and twisted the truth a bunch, but if you just tuned in without knowing all the facts and context, that wasn't necessarily clear
For me though I was pleasantly surprised by Walz actually making a moral case for immigration, you don't see that nearly enough
Yes. Vance was full on snake oil salesman and many Americans will buy.
It was refreshing to have a civil debate without yelling and name calling. Compared to the previous debate it's night and day.
Omg yes, I was beginning to forget what a debate between two adults looked like.
Yeah, honestly I tuned it for a bit and was shocked at how shocked I was about the debate being just a normal(ish) political debate.
It's bothering me how desensitized I've become to Trumpian rhetoric in politics, not only in the USA, but globally. Almost a decade of this shit in the public, and a whole new generation of voters who think it's normal, too. It's pissing me off.
Im shocked at how shocked you were at being shocked
One hour after the debate, I sorted lemmy posts by top of last hour. The first 5 posts were about Vance, the 6th about Trump. Not one with Walz in the headline.
I mean yeah because Walz pretty much just answered questions while Vance whined about being "fact checked"
Walz did fine. Unfortunately, that's definitely not enough to be impressive. In today's world he needed to be more aggressive and stern.
There were also a couple of times that were just bad optics for him. He looked pretty goofy nodding his head at Vance.
Of course I wanted better from Walz. Sadly, and worrisome that Vance came across as more than adequate.
I like Walz so it was frustrating to hear him tripping over his words and misspeaking. I think I heard him say he was friends with a school shooter, when I know he meant to say people effected by shootings. I felt that unfortunately Vance sounded clear and authoritative which will sway some people, despite being full of shit. One question Walz handled excellently was the one on abortion and reproductive rights. I just wish he had been that solid and aggressive and confident throughout the whole debate.
It's unfortunate that reds will use his stammering against him, (especially when their guy can say whatever the hell he wants w/o repercussions) but I thought it made him actually sound human, something we haven't heard in politics in a while. I myself have a minor stutter, so it annoys the hell out of me when people try to say that makes someone unfit for office.
Same as the previous two debates - the candidate that is constrained by not being a massive fucking liar will always be at a disadvantage because the moderators have abdicated their responsibility to do their jobs and fact check.
I think Walz improved as the night went on, he seemed a little nervous and needed to slow down a bit but he came across as relatable and human. That's something Vance isn't able to do.
Was it the moderators decision to not fact check? Considering they still called out Vance that one time makes me wonder if they were just as annoyed by it as we were, but needed to keep their jobs
I'm sure the instruction came from higher up. Trump is great for business, he drives engagement, so more viewers, so more ad revenue.
If the moderators are OK with this, as in they're not speaking out, then I'd hesitate to call them journalists.
I feel way better about Walz. Strong debate performance even if it isn't his forte. The ending where Vance got his leg in the beartrap of Jan 6 and could not answer why Mike Pence was not on stage instead of him (because Mike Pence is not a suck up) was shocking to see. Dude did not practice for that question at all, lmfao.
I also chuckled when Vance basically argued to Walz that the Infrastructure act and the inflation reduction act were good things. No shit shirlock, that's why Biden-Harris implemented them. It brought back American jobs and have rekindled diminished, rust belt states with new factories and infrastructure.
Vance came across as kinda whiny and petulant, Walz made strong points and really defined policy specifics.
Next debate, CBS needs to do way more aggressive fact-checking. ABC had way better fact-checking, but it still could have been way better. Vance walked all over CBS with his lying and taking credit for Biden and Obama administration Ws.
Absolutely. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there's gonna be another debate this time 'round (weird since they both seem to think they did so well)
Also, Good ol' Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that it was a 3 on 1 debate. Thought that was funny.
I almost agree with her lol
Obligatory:
"KAMALA WANTS TO CENSOR ME FOR LYING TO THE PUBLIC WAHHHH"
Lots of deluded wishful thinking in this thread. I would never vote for Vance either, but I recognize an impressive debate performance when I see one.