Walz Vance debate
-
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
The only factual death is Babbit. All other deaths are connected to the riots with some hand waved wish casting. The rest of the description you present as fact is just a non provable rhetorical framing.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
-
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
Horace can take the death point, I'll take the "protest pecefully" point.
At what point does "protest peacefully", become inciting a riot? The vast majority of people in Washington that day didn't riot. Only a relatively small number did.
Now, going from fact to conjecture, how many of those rioting were A) government informants, or B) government (FBI) employees helping to incite a riot for political purposes?
-
277 police officers were injured defending the Federal Courthouse in Portland during the George Floyd riots. Over 900 policemen and women were injured around the country. Your statement that it was the single largest assault on police is categorically wrong.
Further, no police died from January 6th. One died from suicide, wrought by depression. An actual physical ailment. Another died of cardiovascular disease.
-
High status progressive white women and their fierce, unflinching defense of the right side of history. They were morally compelled to do what they did, and they will never make any apologies for it.
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
High status progressive white women and their fierce, unflinching defense of the right side of history. They were morally compelled to do what they did, and they will never make any apologies for it.
Well, dammit! Now we know. It's because Vance was mansplaining!
-
Could be thyroid disease as well.
But...
-
Could be thyroid disease as well.
But...
-
-
-
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
The only factual death is Babbit. All other deaths are connected to the riots with some hand waved wish casting. The rest of the description you present as fact is just a non provable rhetorical framing.
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
The only factual death is Babbit. All other deaths are connected to the riots with some hand waved wish casting. The rest of the description you present as fact is just a non provable rhetorical framing.
Wish casting? For deaths? You had what, 3 or 4 cops die within a couple days of the riot from health or suicide reasons? You had a couple protestors die of heart attack during the riot. You think there is NO correlation? You think these 5-6 folks would've literally died without the Jan 6 event? That is the true question. I think their deaths very, very, very, very, very likely would not have happened without the Jan 6 event. If you disagree, then we're at an impasse. This isn't court, this is just my common sense jurisdiction.
If you agree that most of their deaths likely would not have happened without Jan 6th, then we're making progress on common ground.
-
Otherwise I must be on the same crazy pills that make me question why folks are parsing out Walz's statement from 10 years ago while ignoring the dozens of daily lies from Trump... mind boggling.
But, I already voted (for a gay dude of all people), so most of this is entertainment now.
-
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
Ya'll, this is debate 101... find a negative fact and make the opponent fact-check you into admitting the negative fact.
Negative fact here? Trump incited a riot to try and overturn his election (landslide) loss, resulting in 100+ cops getting injured and multiple deaths. You can debate if it's 140 or 100 or 80, or if it's 10 deaths, or 1. The point has been made.
Well at this point you're just lying.
Where? I can be a knucklehead at times
The only factual death is Babbit. All other deaths are connected to the riots with some hand waved wish casting. The rest of the description you present as fact is just a non provable rhetorical framing.
Wish casting? For deaths? You had what, 3 or 4 cops die within a couple days of the riot from health or suicide reasons? You had a couple protestors die of heart attack during the riot. You think there is NO correlation? You think these 5-6 folks would've literally died without the Jan 6 event? That is the true question. I think their deaths very, very, very, very, very likely would not have happened without the Jan 6 event. If you disagree, then we're at an impasse. This isn't court, this is just my common sense jurisdiction.
If you agree that most of their deaths likely would not have happened without Jan 6th, then we're making progress on common ground.
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
You think there is NO correlation? You think these 5-6 folks would've literally died without the Jan 6 event? That is the true question.
Again, correlation does not equal causation. Heart attacks are not caused by a singular event but by a long period of declining cardiovascular health that culminates in blockage. Suicides are not either and are not uncommon among LEOs. Both are a culmination of events.
In short, those deaths were likely to happen soon anyway. January 6 did not cause any otherwise healthy person to have a heart attack or commit suicide by itself.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
BTW, unless Walz's son was on the sidewalk...
-
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
How often does a VEEP debate change anything?
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
How often does a VEEP debate change anything?
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Gotta wonder if the choice of Palin hurt McCain. I don't remember her debate with Joe, however. Heh, wouldn't that be a hoot today?
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
-
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
How often does a VEEP debate change anything?
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
How often does a VEEP debate change anything?
Not often, but in a really tight race, you take a few extra votes where you can get them.
Secondly, the debate did a lot for Vance, and may have changed a lot of MSM-fueled negative opinions.
Agreed, he was very articulate. For example, his answer about abortion (and that republicans need to do a better job at earning trust and supporting all the "stuff" that surrounds having a baby... child care, health care, affordable homes) as well as his discussion about how Walz has a tough job playing whack-a-mole denying Trump's victories and hiding Kamala's failures. That was a great part in the debate.
