The most surprising thing about the VP debate

[jillian]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

pence is setting himself up to be the candidate of the radical religious right in 2020. he was perfectly happy to hang the Donald out to dry.

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

pence is setting himself up to be the candidate of the radical religious right in 2020. he was perfectly happy to hang the Donald out to dry.

And he did a very fine job of that.

 

[jillian]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

pence is setting himself up to be the candidate of the radical religious right in 2020. he was perfectly happy to hang the Donald out to dry.

And he did a very fine job of that.

he did. I was kind of disappointed that kaine didn't point out what a homophobe and misogynist pence is.... but I guess that wasn't kaine's job last night.

 

[yiostheoy]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Simple explanation --

Pence is a public figure and anything he says now will be held against him in the future.

If he were to defend Trump this would come back and bite him in the future.

Trump is most likely to lose, same as Romney, and therefore their #2 guys -- Ryan and Pence -- will face off in the 2020 primaries against Hillary for her re-election.

So Pence has to be careful.

Ryan is on record for yanking-in Trumps choke chain.

Pence cannot be on record defending Trump.

 

[yiostheoy]

Pence refused to take the bait, that is what you are pissed about.

Debate is all about baiting, taking bait, and avoiding bait.

It was a duel between two pretty good debaters.

They do this for a living.

 

[coldjoint]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Pence refused to take the bait, that is what you are pissed about.

It's not "bait" when one is asked to defend or advocate for a position that the Presidential candidate advocates and the one asked to do so is the Vice President. It's not "bait" in any way at all when one is asked to defend one's own positions and assertions.

What makes a call to defend one's positions and ideas become "bait" is either (1) one's being incapable of defending them cogently and directly, which is something that typically happens one has articulated something that one has not fully considered prior to making the statement, (2) the ideas themselves being indefensible, or (3) both. At this stage of the campaign, #1 is inexcusable.

Pence saw it for what it was, quotes taken out of context and media hyperbole. Nothing to do with the issues, only character assination.

 

[yiostheoy]

Pence saw it for what it was, quotes taken out of context and media hyperbole. Nothing to do with the issues, only character assination.

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

 

[bendog]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

pence is setting himself up to be the candidate of the radical religious right in 2020. he was perfectly happy to hang the Donald out to dry.

And he did a very fine job of that.

he did. I was kind of disappointed that kaine didn't point out what a homophobe and misogynist pence is.... but I guess that wasn't kaine's job last night.

Kaine is too nice a guy to do that, and a religious social conservative himself personally.

Both guys had a job to do for their campaigns. They did it. No hard feelings. And it probably didn't affect the polls 1/4 of a point.

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Simple explanation --

Pence is a public figure and anything he says now will be held against him in the future.

If he were to defend Trump this would come back and bite him in the future.

Trump is most likely to lose, same as Romney, and therefore their #2 guys -- Ryan and Pence -- will face off in the 2020 primaries against Hillary for her re-election.

So Pence has to be careful.

Ryan is on record for yanking-in Trumps choke chain.

Pence cannot be on record defending Trump.

All that may be so. Even if it is, so what? Do you want a future candidate who has the integrity to say what he believes and put it to the test of the American voters or do want someone who won't say what they believe to be so?

As we all know, actions speak louder than words, but both speak volumes. That Pence accepted the VP offer from Trump and now won't support Trump's positions points at Pence's having done so more to serve his own political aspirations than to serve either Trump or the country. That's just not a virtuous way to go about things.

And no, I'm not remarking on the lack of virtue of others and I'm well aware that many others lack virtue in their words and deeds. My point in this post that like others who lack virtue, so does Pence. That's not a good thing in my mind nor does it aid him, in my mind, with any future candidacy he may undertake.

 

[320 Years of History]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Pence refused to take the bait, that is what you are pissed about.

It's not "bait" when one is asked to defend or advocate for a position that the Presidential candidate advocates and the one asked to do so is the Vice President. It's not "bait" in any way at all when one is asked to defend one's own positions and assertions.

What makes a call to defend one's positions and ideas become "bait" is either (1) one's being incapable of defending them cogently and directly, which is something that typically happens one has articulated something that one has not fully considered prior to making the statement, (2) the ideas themselves being indefensible, or (3) both. At this stage of the campaign, #1 is inexcusable.

Pence saw it for what it was, quotes taken out of context and media hyperbole. Nothing to do with the issues, only character assination.

Do you not think among the things a VP should do is defend the character of the person for whom they will be Vice President if the pair wins the election?

• Do husbands not defend their wives character and vice versa?
• Do children not defend their parents character and vice versa?
• Do corporate VPs not defend the character of company Presidents and CEOs?

On what basis should a VP candidate get a "pass" on defending the character of person whom they will serve?

 

[Supposn]

The broadcasted confrontation between the two major vice presidency candidates was not a debate. It was 3 people talking over each other; a barroom like audio brawl.


Senator Tim Kaine is unable to shut his mouth while Governor Mike Pence is speaking. He’s demonstrating he can behave no less uncivil than Donald Trump. Both Kaine and Trump are unfit for the offices they’re aspiring to.


Respectfully, Supposn

 

[yiostheoy]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Simple explanation --

Pence is a public figure and anything he says now will be held against him in the future.

If he were to defend Trump this would come back and bite him in the future.

Trump is most likely to lose, same as Romney, and therefore their #2 guys -- Ryan and Pence -- will face off in the 2020 primaries against Hillary for her re-election.

So Pence has to be careful.

Ryan is on record for yanking-in Trumps choke chain.

Pence cannot be on record defending Trump.

All that may be so. Even if it is, so what? Do you want a future candidate who has the integrity to say what he believes and put it to the test of the American voters or do want someone who won't say what they believe to be so?

As we all know, actions speak louder than words, but both speak volumes. That Pence accepted the VP offer from Trump and now won't support Trump's positions points at Pence's having done so more to serve his own political aspirations than to serve either Trump or the country. That's just not a virtuous way to go about things.

And no, I'm not remarking on the lack of virtue of others and I'm well aware that many others lack virtue in their words and deeds. My point in this post that like others who lack virtue, so does Pence. That's not a good thing in my mind nor does it aid him, in my mind, with any future candidacy he may undertake.

Trump will be a 2016 trivia question after November.

Pence has to worry about the long term.

As a VP candidate it gives Pence great visibility. Almost like a god.

Same thing happened to Ryan -- now he is Speaker of the House.

Pence has a future.

Trump does not.

Ergo no sense in defending Trump.

Besides Trump is indefensible.

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

Kaine is too nice a guy to do that, and a religious social conservative himself personally.

Both guys had a job to do for their campaigns. They did it. No hard feelings. And it probably didn't affect the polls 1/4 of a point.

Kaine did as well as I thought he would, only he was a bit too bullying. That was a blunder.

Pence did better than I thought, although many of his choreographed Reagan lines did not work at all.

I enjoyed listening to them both.

This is unlike Donald and Hillary which I do not like to hear much.

Trump absolutely makes me sick.

And Hillary is still very annoying at times.

 

[jillian]

Mostly I don't much care about VP debate. The VP isn't running and I think, this time around, either of them is a better candidate than is the person at the top of either ticket.

That said, I was quite surprised that Pence didn't support Trump. That he didn't suggest he also might not back Trump's ideas/initiatives if Trump wins the election and they both take office. That is not a good thing and seeing hints of it this far in advance of an Administration holding sway does not bode well for the prospective presidency or for us as citizens.

Now it's not Pence's fault that he doesn't agree with Trump. Trump should have chosen a running mate who does agree with his ideas and policy proposals. There's nothing wrong with having a dissenting point of view among one's close advisors; that's often a good thing. But a VP is not merely a close advisor. A VP is also a vote in the Senate when there is a tie. A VP cannot be fired by the President. Accordingly, there must be unity of thought as go ways and means of implementing policy. What we have seen is that there is not.

Simple explanation --

Pence is a public figure and anything he says now will be held against him in the future.

If he were to defend Trump this would come back and bite him in the future.

Trump is most likely to lose, same as Romney, and therefore their #2 guys -- Ryan and Pence -- will face off in the 2020 primaries against Hillary for her re-election.

So Pence has to be careful.

Ryan is on record for yanking-in Trumps choke chain.

Pence cannot be on record defending Trump.

Well yes. But pence also disagreed with Donald openly on the issue of Russia. And there is going to be at least one really good ad showing pence shaking his head no no no to Donald's heinous comments with shots of
Donald saying all of the things that pence was shaking his head about.

 

[jillian]

The broadcasted confrontation between the two major vice presidency candidates was not a debate. It was 3 people talking over each other; a barroom like audio brawl.


Senator Tim Kaine is unable to shut his mouth while Governor Mike Pence is speaking. He’s demonstrating he can behave no less uncivil than Donald Trump. Both Kaine and Trump are unfit for the offices they’re aspiring to.


Respectfully, Supposn

They interrupted each other. You do realize that, right? Being a little excited out of the box is certainly isn't disqualifying.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Bottom line: Pence smoked Kaine and smoked him bad

 

[Norman]

Someone has been watching too much CNN (Clinton News Network).

 

[OldLady]

Well, what I recall is that Pence outlined Trump's immigration policy, both border security and refugee-wise, and his "law and order" policy without any differences. The economic policies/tax plans sounded the same as far as I listened. Yes, Pence denied it when not-quite-accurate words were put in Trump's mouth. Kaine threw a lot of well worn talking points that included inferences or restatements of Trump's words, sometimes taken out of context. He wasn't technically in the wrong to deny them.
Anyway, I believe Pence is towing the party line for the most part. It doesn't seem to me that the problems are that major or that they will cause chaos and confusion once they are in office. Pence has a hard job, taking Trump's stream of consciousness ramblings and turning them into Presidential policy. He does it well.

 

[AntonToo]

Everything. He did support him as best he was able to say anything at all. You are simply beside yourself because the active duty military, law enforcement and police, ICE officers, and the Border Patrol don't want anything to do with Hillary. The only support she garners is from the likes of BLM, the LGBT, and Planned Parenthood. No really decent folks support her.

Lol it's hard to believe that you actually believe your own bullshit.

 

[OldLady]

Cutting through the BS spouted by Kaine and attempting to digest something real to take away from the debate:

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on immigration and the refugee issue is the correct position, why then are ICE and also the Border Patrol Unions endorsing Trump and Pence?

If Hillary's and Kaine's positions on law enforcement and law enforcement bias is the correct position, why then has the 30,000 member Police & Law Enforcement Union endorsed the Trump-Pence ticket?

If Hillary's and Kaine's position on foreign relations, ISIS, Middle Eastern policies, IRAQ, Libya, Russia, China, the Military, etc., is the correct position, why then are active duty military endorsing the Trump-Pence ticket by a margin of 2 to 1?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Excuse me? What has any of that to do with Pence or his refusal to support the man at the top of the ticket?

Pence refused to take the bait, that is what you are pissed about.

It's not "bait" when one is asked to defend or advocate for a position that the Presidential candidate advocates and the one asked to do so is the Vice President. It's not "bait" in any way at all when one is asked to defend one's own positions and assertions.

What makes a call to defend one's positions and ideas become "bait" is either (1) one's being incapable of defending them cogently and directly, which is something that typically happens one has articulated something that one has not fully considered prior to making the statement, (2) the ideas themselves being indefensible, or (3) both. At this stage of the campaign, #1 is inexcusable.

Pence saw it for what it was, quotes taken out of context and media hyperbole. Nothing to do with the issues, only character assination.

Do you not think among the things a VP should do is defend the character of the person for whom they will be Vice President if the pair wins the election?

• Do husbands not defend their wives character and vice versa?
• Do children not defend their parents character and vice versa?
• Do corporate VPs not defend the character of company Presidents and CEOs?

On what basis should a VP candidate get a "pass" on defending the character of person whom they will serve?

WHO/WHEN/WHERE was Pence asked during the debate to defend Trump's character that he refused?