2024 VP Debate - Walz vs. Vance

[27monster27 16,039]

@En_Sabah_Nur @Roughhouse Dandy

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/attachments/1000000902-jpg.934636/

The fact that this is a hard choice for some people. 

EDIT: I can't get it to imbed, but basically:

Housing proposals:

Trump Vance: Make more federal land available and mass deportations

Harris Walz: $25,000 down payment and tax incentives for builders

----

The fact that some people have problems with this choice I-

[Monstermilo 5,473]

these debates are meaningless. policy wise, trump and vance are dangerous 

harris and walz arent perfect, but are not trying to dismantle democracy like trump is. 

[Taylucifer 5,249]

Vance's delivery was much stronger. Walz put up a generally good fight, him asking Vance if Trump lost the 2020 election was an excellent question, could have gone a bit harder for the kill afterwards. I thought it was quite strange that they kept agreeing with each other, it was like clockwork. Overall I don't think this changed much but Walz won the debate in my opinion 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,281]

9 hours ago, ssslyboy said:

not after tonight lolol

Yeah, Walz did pretty well, so not sure what you’re talking about. Based on all of your replies in this thread, I think it’s safe to assume you simply don’t like the guy (which is fine, but isn’t really the basis for any kind of rational debate). 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,281]

@Gagadailys Hey, how about actually engaging with people in this thread instead of trying to be shady and lmao reacting everyone you disagree with? 

[djBuffoon 12,239]

Walz got off to a nervous start, but then hit his stride. Totally nailed JD on reproductive rights, healthcare, and January 6.

It's comical to hear anyone say that Vance won the debate. You don't win based on how smoothly you lie. It's a matching of ideas and policy, not how quickly you can spout your bullshït.

Vance came across as slimy and mechanical, Walz came across as genuine and compassionate. The needle won't move too much, but I believe Harris/Walz has benefitted from these last two debates.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,959]

At school and at work we learnt to always answer questions directly, but Vance and Walz so often gave anecdotes, digressions, accusations of the opponent, then an implied vague short unsatisfying answer to the question in the middle of a long monologue, that one didn't even know what the question was anymore

Walz said during the debate:

"But the expansion of Israél and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-vp-debate-transcript-walz-vance-2024/

When I encounter the term "expansion(s)", it's usually either in historical contexts, the enlargement of a kingdom/imperial state, or more modernly, when a company wants to increase its market share and go overseas/ to other countries. Only rarely is it used analogously to " evolvement", and then more in the field of education than in geopolitics. The only way to understand this sentence is that Walz wants Israél to grow and take territory from its neighbours.

I think that is a very overstretched notion of self-defence.

I think Walz also inadvertently leaked their secret goal here: The escalation between Îran-Israël aims to create a basis of legitimacy with which Israël - with the full support of the USA - can conquer more territories.

The moderators should have asked Walz why Israël is granted this right, but Russia is not, and how this fits in with Harris' flip-flop between "self-defence" and the "two-state solution", and how Walz-Harris define "self-defence", and whether the concept of "Israêl's expansion" is the original idea of Isráel and backed by the US or originally drafted by the US and backed by Isráel.

To be honest, the debate has raised more questions than it has answered.

[Scar97 1,695]

Pretty crazy that most post debate polls show it was tied or Walz won (see Fox) despite Vance looking clearly sharper even though he just lied the whole time. Doesn’t matter how you argue if you seem slimy and people don’t like what you are saying. 
 

Anyway, this debate was never going to change anything

[MOT 3,641]

Watched a recording of the full debate, and my honest assessment before reading or seeing any analysis was that Walz shaded it. Vance was more impressive in the first half and Walz stumbled on Tiananmen, but Walz was better in the second half and Vance took a bit of a hiding on healthcare and childcare. Walz sounded like he knew those issues inside out while Vance looked lost.

And an overall comment about the two debates : there ia an odd man out among the four candidates, and it's Trump. He's a bum. At least Vance can present himself.