The Debate
-
His football coach persona seems alien and phantasmagoric to me but that's just me.
-
@Steve-Miller said in The Debate:
I watched the whole thing so you don’t have to.
Thank you!
Walz slowed down. He owned the space. He’s comfortable here and he showed it. He’s the Dad you had before Fox stole him away. Very, very effective because it reads as real.
He should do more of that.
I’ll have to see if I can find a clip of that part.
-
Steve, Thank you for watching that for me. I "left the building".
Mik, I thought I might prefer Walz to Harris, but I think Vance would be not better than Trump, probably worse, because he would shift with the tides and not in a good way.
-
Vance is coherent and intelligent, which Trump is not. He's also verbally skilled and quick on his feet.
I know this is a partisan take, but it's a question of whether you prefer evil and smart to an evil, stupid, possibly suffering from early stages dementia, narcissistic bully.
-
The encouraging thing that came out last night was how much common ground was identified. Again, I'd take either of them over the tops of the tickets.
On a lighter note, I'd love to play poker with Walz and am sure I would clean him out. His face gives away too much. I imagine he could muster a poker face if the stakes were high enough, but I didn't see it last night.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
― Douglas Adams -
@Mik said in The Debate:
His face gives away too much. I imagine he could muster a poker face if the stakes were high enough, but I didn't see it last night.
Could that have been intentional? I didn't watch, so you may be referring to something else, but there's something to be said for letting people know what you're thinking without saying so verbally.
As to Vance, absolutely not. There's no way I'd prefer him over Harris or Walz, for starters. And I suspect he's smarter than Trump, but just as evil and just as much of a narcissistic opportunist. So not a good combination.
Also, you know, there are all his policy stances, which I find abhorrent.
-
And Vance lied like 40 times.
I have a problem with that.
-
The civility was refreshing and unexpected. Walz let Vance get away with too much, and he seemed incoherent at times. Vance scared me because he's polished, poised, a good debater, and comes off as credible, even though he lies like a rug. Walz was a lot more likeable, but I found myself wishing Harris had chosen Buttigieg instead. He would have mopped the floor with Vance.
-
I thought Vance won. Waltz looked like a deer in the headlights. It's a very difficult argument to make that a page needs to be turned and you're the one who can turn it when you're representing a ticket with a lead who has been incumbent for the last three and a half years.
-
