Winning or losing is a moot point when one side is made up of bullies. Bullies never concede a loss. Ever. Therefore framing winning/losing in a debate like this is meaningless.
"Tim Walz was perhaps more genial than I would’ve preferred."
That's what I thought at first. And then it dawned on me that a lot of disengaged voters are disengaged because they don't like the fighting. Tried and true folks on either side of the fence, we die hards, really want to see a fight, but it might be that lack of a fight That draws in the disengaged voters. Maybe I'm just being a summer child, but perhaps the VP debate is a nice companion piece to the presidential debate of a couple of weeks ago. It didn't need to be the same thing, and it didn't need to have the same energy. And we knew that Vance for the most part was going to have a cool head And speak artIculately. At worst, Tuesday's debate simply didn't move the needle. And that's fine by me. Debates are judged by who lost, not who won. They do more harm to the loser than they confer benefit to the winner
I love the Patrick Bateman American Psycho comparison - well done. And the frightening fact is that for much of the world's history psychopaths, sociopaths and mentally ill fucks have run the world. Read your history and tell me it's not true. We'll disagree if you think not.
The Republican Party is entirely devoted to restoring the ancien regime of feudalism, with a neo-tech twist. Let's let Peter Thiel and his lickspittle Vance run the world, it'll be like the good old middle ages.
So what if Vance won the debate? It doesn't matter, and he's been a disaster on the campaign trail, and that won't change. He's still unlikable.
BTW, if trump wins, not only will America be in trouble, but trump himself will be in trouble. Vance's masters really want him to be POTUS, so trump, beware of the 25th Amendment!
I don’t know what debate the corporate media saw, but Vance didn’t win on anything but smarminess and bullshit. Maybe Tim Walz isn’t the most polished debater, but I thought his answers were pretty clear on where he and Harris stood on issues.
PS: Your Columbia House analogy made me lol. My poor sibling bought into that scam and it took forever and a day to get out of it.
Women especially were not fooled by his smarmy salesman persona. The way he treated the moderators was condescending. The truest moment was when he lost his temper over being fact-checked and had to have his mic muted because he wouldn't stop arguing with them.
The memes are what matter. Trump will never shake the dogs and cats meme. Vance will never shake the J6 memes about to be unleashed. Walz got his meme. That’s all he needed to do.
Or how about "you promised not to fact-check me"? See, Vance fucked up here--that statement on its own sounds like "why won't you let me lie?" when he'd have been better off saying "what, are you stepping in on Walz's side?" or "are you debating me, or is Tim?"
He fucked up, and that clip is going to be used every time a Democrat needs to use shorthand to say "these people are lying yet again".
Walz’ approval rating went up +23 to +37 in the CNN after-debate polling. Vance went up too—to -3.
Voters like genial. It was such a relief. Walz’ best lines were ads the next AM. All anyone will remember was Vance refusing to confirm that TFG lost.
Winning or losing is a moot point when one side is made up of bullies. Bullies never concede a loss. Ever. Therefore framing winning/losing in a debate like this is meaningless.
"Tim Walz was perhaps more genial than I would’ve preferred."
That's what I thought at first. And then it dawned on me that a lot of disengaged voters are disengaged because they don't like the fighting. Tried and true folks on either side of the fence, we die hards, really want to see a fight, but it might be that lack of a fight That draws in the disengaged voters. Maybe I'm just being a summer child, but perhaps the VP debate is a nice companion piece to the presidential debate of a couple of weeks ago. It didn't need to be the same thing, and it didn't need to have the same energy. And we knew that Vance for the most part was going to have a cool head And speak artIculately. At worst, Tuesday's debate simply didn't move the needle. And that's fine by me. Debates are judged by who lost, not who won. They do more harm to the loser than they confer benefit to the winner
David frum. A waste of skin
Vance did lie relentlessly, and Gish gallop away.
I love the Patrick Bateman American Psycho comparison - well done. And the frightening fact is that for much of the world's history psychopaths, sociopaths and mentally ill fucks have run the world. Read your history and tell me it's not true. We'll disagree if you think not.
The Republican Party is entirely devoted to restoring the ancien regime of feudalism, with a neo-tech twist. Let's let Peter Thiel and his lickspittle Vance run the world, it'll be like the good old middle ages.
So what if Vance won the debate? It doesn't matter, and he's been a disaster on the campaign trail, and that won't change. He's still unlikable.
BTW, if trump wins, not only will America be in trouble, but trump himself will be in trouble. Vance's masters really want him to be POTUS, so trump, beware of the 25th Amendment!
‘merikkkan psychos, wakkkos!😒🤪🤡👻💀
I don’t know what debate the corporate media saw, but Vance didn’t win on anything but smarminess and bullshit. Maybe Tim Walz isn’t the most polished debater, but I thought his answers were pretty clear on where he and Harris stood on issues.
PS: Your Columbia House analogy made me lol. My poor sibling bought into that scam and it took forever and a day to get out of it.
The LACK of polish is a plus. You know who is polished? Televangelists.
Women especially were not fooled by his smarmy salesman persona. The way he treated the moderators was condescending. The truest moment was when he lost his temper over being fact-checked and had to have his mic muted because he wouldn't stop arguing with them.
I thought the mods took a little too long to mute but was glad the fact check comment made it to air.
The corporate media has pretty much crowned Vance as the “winner” of the debate, much like it was a tennis match.
If you have to lie to “win” a debate, then you didn’t win the debate.
They were going to do that in any case. It was a fait accompli
"That seemed overly complicated, almost deliberately so — like trying to cancel your Columbia House Records Club membership."
You can pry my Pearl Jam "Ten" CD from my cold dead hands, Columbia.
from a WaPo comment: “Vance looks like the guy you casually keep your hand over your drink while he tries to impress you about crypto at the bar.”
THIS!!!!!
The corportate media generall ate up Jay Diddy's couch fucking last night, because apparently he did it with style.
I’m going to answer your question, Norah,
The tell he isn’t going to answer any question
"But but but bu bu bbbbbb, the rules were NO FACT CHECKING!"
The memes are what matter. Trump will never shake the dogs and cats meme. Vance will never shake the J6 memes about to be unleashed. Walz got his meme. That’s all he needed to do.
Or how about "you promised not to fact-check me"? See, Vance fucked up here--that statement on its own sounds like "why won't you let me lie?" when he'd have been better off saying "what, are you stepping in on Walz's side?" or "are you debating me, or is Tim?"
He fucked up, and that clip is going to be used every time a Democrat needs to use shorthand to say "these people are lying yet again".
He couldn’t help himself. He finally lost patience with being challenged and showed his true colors!