Am I the Crazy One?

[toobfreak]

Trump is just what America needs. (IMO)

And I never said any different. I just question whether Vance will be as effective a relayer of that opinion to the unwashed public as he should be (or could have been), and having seen the debate, my fears were confirmed--- while Vance was not bad, her fell far short of how good he should have been. Remember, you are far better informed of the issues than the average viewer.

 

[toobfreak]

I think he could have done better, but in spite of a bit of mod bias, I think Vance cleaned Walz's clock.

Actually, the mods were not all that bad. They asked fairly tough questions of both sides. And they fairly held both people's feet to the fire to really answer the questions. But as to Vance cleaning clocks? There was no clock cleaning. If anything, I would have awarded the slight edge to Walz for a number of reasons. Walz came out attacking Trump with a volley of accusations, while Vance passed on huge opportunity after opportunity. Mind you, I can turn off my personal opinions and biases and I watched the debate from the POV of an uninitiated, undecided, viewer.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government. President Trump has stated as clearly as possible that he agrees with that decision. Why the fuck are they arguing about Federal abortion policy?
• They are arguing about a possible law that makes paid family leave a mandatory obligation for U.S. employers. Congress has NO POWER to demand that private employers pay for work not done/time not worked. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. Why is Vance not pointing that out?
• On the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), why was it not mentioned that the whole thing is unconstitutional? Congress has no power to get into the health insurance business.
• On child care questions, what the ever-loving fuck? Where does the Federal government get the obligation to pay for child care, or for housing? Nowhere.

It seems like they consider it a losing proposition to even mention Constitutional constraints on what the President and Congress can do. I don't get it.

Don't feel bad. You are crazy, but you aren't the only one. There are loads of MAGAs just as crazy as you.

 

[toobfreak]

HERE IS HOW THE VP DEBATE REALLY WENT:

Mind you, this is an honest, objective review of how it went. I still support Trump and hope he wins so just because I say something negative about Vance or positive about Walz does NOT mean I'm joining the democrat party.

Vance lost to Walz about 60-40 or maybe 55-45. Let me explain:

BODY LANGUAGE:
Walz came out intense, laser focused, constantly taking notes, concerned, passionate. Like it was important to him.
Vance came out laid back, relaxed, kind of a Howdy-Doody look on his face, with a rather calm, emotionless, detached demeanor.
Walz spoke directly to the viewer looking right into the camera making impassioned appeals with hand gestures and an expressive, convincing face.
Vance spoke to the moderators, swallowed hard, making rather passionless, wooden statements with no particular expression or voice inflection standing rather stiff.

OPPORTUNITY:
Walz came out drilling for Trump, using him as a body bag of punches and attacks.
Vance was mostly on the defensive most of the time, but even when he attacked, he didn't sound like he really meant it, his voice came across sounding flat.
Walz appeared to be thoroughly and professional prepared by experts in public speaking.
Vance used his wife to coach him.
Walz fairly made the case of the Left's attacks on Trump and made it sound real, important, urgent.
Vance for whatever reason passed on huge opportunity after opportunity, either because he failed to take notes or because he was just badly coached. One case for example I recall was when Walz accused Trump of causing the economic collapse of 21, 22 and beyond which carries the lion's shares of most of the Right's arguments against Biden-Harris! When given the chance to rebuttal, Vance just let it slide! He didn't even bother to point out that most of the reason for the economy's collapse was due to the Covid shutdown which not only was beyond Trump's control as it was a national decision, but was chiefly orchestrated by the blue state governors including Walz! So when you close all the businesses and send most people home, of course the economy will collapse! Not because of Trump, yet Vance just let it go.

Another missed opportunity was the border bill. Walz argued that Trump shut it down to keep the Dems from looking good. The reality which Vance again failed to proffer was because it included guarantees for another 5,000 illegal immigrants let in per day or whatever, thereby insuring limitless, unending illegals! But Vance let it slide.

Vance did make the good point more than once that if all these great things Harris intends are true, then why hasn't she already implemented them?! Why isn't she doing them now??? But again, he did so with a rather monotonous and emotionless voice with no inflection to his voice carrying the gravity of the intent thereby not emotionally involving the viewer. If they were not closely paying attention, they might have missed the point altogether. The debate ran over so my recording of the very end was cut off, I just hope he made a better, more impassioned argument in his finish, like it actually mattered to him, and so, should matter as well to the viewer. The case against Harris/Walz is an easy one, yet Vance failed to get it across loud and clear. Vance appeared to loosen up a little bit half way through so I hope he made an emotional case in his closing statement at least because to the majority of voters, choosing in an election is an /emotional/ decision, not a cerebral one, yet Vance's approach all night long was very cerebral.

Mind you, when the uninitiated layman watches these debates, body language, facial expression, vocal inflection and such are mainly what decide their views on which to believe because they simply do not keep up with the issues like people here do. And on that case, while Walz was animated, waving his arms and impassioned, Vance came across as stiff, rather uninvolved, detached and flat. And that IMO decided the debate more in Walz's favor.

 

[22lcidw]

Don't feel bad. You are crazy, but you aren't the only one. There are loads of MAGAs just as crazy as you.

Many Deplorables woke up as the nation became woke. Many of what they elected from their party are not what they have promoted. You are revenge for any gripe or perception for any wrong both currently and in the past. You have topped out though. While there are better people who are kept beneath your privilege. The real privilege. The good news is that your gripes and anyone experiencing wrongs will get their revenge on those who have committed abuses against them. It is so easy to see this as many do not.

 

[pknopp]

I am unfortunately a political junkie and even though I try to screen out some of the bullshit I'm still inundated with political ads and arguments at this time in the four-year cycle.

This evening I've been watching the VP debate, and I wonder why Vance in particular is not bringing up any Constitutional issues. Let me mention a few, just for fun:

• The Supreme Court has declared quite unambiguously that abortion is an issue for the States, and NOT the Federal government.

I have to stop you right there. They NEVER ruled that. They ruled it wasn't in the Constitution as a right and specifically said they were not ruling that the federal government couldn't pass abortion laws.