Walz Vance debate
-
-
When Vance's mic was cut, he was trying to explain the use of the CBP app. Walz was wrong in his characterization of that policy.
The idiot moderators at CBS should have let Vance make his point and then allow Walz a short rebuttal. After all, this was a debate and the two were addressing perhaps the largest issue of the campaign.
No, we had to go to climate change, with O'Donnell prefacing her question with opinion stated as fact.
Sheesh...
-
-
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
I don't know if this is accurate, but I'll bet it's pretty close:
Hugh Hewitt:
Abortion has now taken a third of a debate after Iran fired 180+ missiles at Iran (sic). Not one question on China, DOD, Ukraine. It's a remarkable abdication by legacy media and the last time GOP should ever agree to left wing media moderating anything.
It was 10 minutes on abortion.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@LuFins-Dad said in Walz Vance debate:
Do they challenge him on the claim that police died because of January 6th?
He said 140 police officers were beaten.
And many later died.
Yes it's demonstrably true that because of Trump's rhetoric and rally spinning up his supporters, we saw the largest mass assault on law enforcement in US history that day, 140 police officers injured. A few dying within days, not to mention a few MAGA folks dying from heart attacks, one overdose (ok maybe that one isn't related), and one dying after trying to breach a barrier guarded by officers with guns yelling not to break through.
But yes Vance, let's focus on the future.
Kind of feel bad for Vance... he's a solid guy, as @Mik said either of these guys would be better for the job than Trump or Harris, Vance spoke the truth before about Trump only now to have to swallow his integrity so as to gain power. Maybe it's 4D chess where Vance is doing this to become president in 2028 and then implement his principals before he became a Trump sycophant.
I only watched the first 10 minutes, it seems Walz was nervous but got into his groove. It otherwise reminded me of civil debates pre-2016 before the 3rd grader bully invaded the stage.
-
@George-K said in Walz Vance debate:
DRINKING GAME:
Strike
Inflation
Hurricane
Border
Israel
Iran
Listen for politicians of all stripes to begin their sentences with “look”, downward inflected. It’s the mark of folksy honesty forthcoming and it is peppered throughout almost every trained politicians speeches.
-
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@LuFins-Dad said in Walz Vance debate:
Do they challenge him on the claim that police died because of January 6th?
He said 140 police officers were beaten.
And many later died.
Yes it's demonstrably true that because of Trump's rhetoric and rally spinning up his supporters, we saw the largest mass assault on law enforcement in US history that day, 140 police officers injured. A few dying within days, not to mention a few MAGA folks dying from heart attacks, one overdose (ok maybe that one isn't related), and one dying after trying to breach a barrier guarded by officers with guns yelling not to break through.
I would bet any amount of money that 140 officers beaten that day (Walz’s claim) would stand up to no scrutiny. Actually 140 officers injured would also probably stand up to no scrutiny, unless one expands the definition of “injured” beyond any recognition.
-
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@LuFins-Dad said in Walz Vance debate:
Do they challenge him on the claim that police died because of January 6th?
He said 140 police officers were beaten.
And many later died.
Yes it's demonstrably true that because of Trump's rhetoric and rally spinning up his supporters, we saw the largest mass assault on law enforcement in US history that day, 140 police officers injured. A few dying within days, not to mention a few MAGA folks dying from heart attacks, one overdose (ok maybe that one isn't related), and one dying after trying to breach a barrier guarded by officers with guns yelling not to break through.
But yes Vance, let's focus on the future.
Kind of feel bad for Vance... he's a solid guy, as @Mik said either of these guys would be better for the job than Trump or Harris, Vance spoke the truth before about Trump only now to have to swallow his integrity so as to gain power. Maybe it's 4D chess where Vance is doing this to become president in 2028 and then implement his principals before he became a Trump sycophant.
I only watched the first 10 minutes, it seems Walz was nervous but got into his groove. It otherwise reminded me of civil debates pre-2016 before the 3rd grader bully invaded the stage.
The British burned the whole place to the ground, IIRC.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@LuFins-Dad said in Walz Vance debate:
Do they challenge him on the claim that police died because of January 6th?
He said 140 police officers were beaten.
And many later died.
Yes it's demonstrably true that because of Trump's rhetoric and rally spinning up his supporters, we saw the largest mass assault on law enforcement in US history that day, 140 police officers injured. A few dying within days, not to mention a few MAGA folks dying from heart attacks, one overdose (ok maybe that one isn't related), and one dying after trying to breach a barrier guarded by officers with guns yelling not to break through.
I would bet any amount of money that 140 officers beaten that day (Walz’s claim) would stand up to no scrutiny. Actually 140 officers injured would also probably stand up to no scrutiny, unless one expands the definition of “injured” beyond any recognition.
I believe the 140 statistic was documented and published many times over the past 4 years not something Walz just made up. I'm not saying the number is accurate, who knows... but again, let's think about what this is parsing. "140 officers were injured and 10 killed..." oh no way man, that's totally wrong, you're an idiot, "Trump only incited a mob that injured 105 officers and had 4 killed!", wow how dumb to believe the 140 number.
-
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
@Jolly said in Walz Vance debate:
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
@LuFins-Dad said in Walz Vance debate:
Do they challenge him on the claim that police died because of January 6th?
He said 140 police officers were beaten.
And many later died.
Yes it's demonstrably true that because of Trump's rhetoric and rally spinning up his supporters, we saw the largest mass assault on law enforcement in US history that day, 140 police officers injured. A few dying within days, not to mention a few MAGA folks dying from heart attacks, one overdose (ok maybe that one isn't related), and one dying after trying to breach a barrier guarded by officers with guns yelling not to break through.
But yes Vance, let's focus on the future.
Kind of feel bad for Vance... he's a solid guy, as @Mik said either of these guys would be better for the job than Trump or Harris, Vance spoke the truth before about Trump only now to have to swallow his integrity so as to gain power. Maybe it's 4D chess where Vance is doing this to become president in 2028 and then implement his principals before he became a Trump sycophant.
I only watched the first 10 minutes, it seems Walz was nervous but got into his groove. It otherwise reminded me of civil debates pre-2016 before the 3rd grader bully invaded the stage.
The British burned the whole place to the ground, IIRC.
Sorry I should've clarified that the largest mass assault on law enforcement was in context of our own citizens, not war with another country.
-
@89th said in Walz Vance debate:
I believe the 140 statistic was documented and published many times over the past 4 years not something Walz just made up. I'm not saying the number is accurate, who knows
Well, re-read those sentences. If the documentation and publishing many times of this claim isn't enough to make you say the number is accurate, then what are we even discussing here? Plenty of nonsense is reported, that doesn't give every individual license to repeat it without putting their own credibility on the line.
"140 officers were injured and 10 killed..." oh no way man, that's totally wrong, you're an idiot, "Trump only incited a mob that injured 105 officers and had 4 killed!", wow how dumb to believe the 140 number.
The real number of officers who unequivocally died as a result of the riot is zero. Many died with a rhetorical connection, swallowed by people who would like that number to be as high as possible. The real number of officers "beaten"? I suspect very, very small. Maybe we should look at the charges filed against the rioters and how many trace back to physical violence against an officer. I think this is one of those issues into which one actually does need to do their own research, because the public idea pool is hopelessly contaminated by the politicization. Not that I'll be doing my own research. I just feel very confident that "140 officers beaten" is nonsense. And so would be "100 officers beaten".
Edit: I did a little bit of my own research and found the 140 number as the number of officers "injured" rather than "beaten". "Beaten" sounds better rhetorically, and I'm sure Walz made an honest mistake substituting the more politically useful word. As for the injuries, I bet there is a lot of friendly fire pepper spray types of injuries in that tally. It's literally just a tally of officers who self-reported anything at all.
Every one of those officers was armed. Does it pass the sniff test that so many were beaten, while no rioters were shot, except Babbit, who hadn't assaulted anybody? And no rioters, doing all that beating of officers, took the cops' guns and started shooting? None of it passes the sniff test.
-
In the 1968 Chicago riots, 11 people were killed, 48 others were wounded by police, over 2000 arrests were made in two days, 90 cops were injured, 36 major fires in four hours and parts of the city were leveled.
It took over 10,000 cops, 6700 National Guardsmen and the fucking 1st Armored Division to restore order.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@Horace said in Walz Vance debate:
Listen for politicians of all stripes to begin their sentences with “look”, downward inflected. It’s the mark of folksy honesty forthcoming and it is peppered throughout almost every trained politicians speeches.
I remember Gingrich’s was ‘frankly’. Sometimes he’d so overuse it that I was expecting him to ‘frankly’ tell me he had eggs for breakfast.
-
@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.
